wl  — ,  i : 1' 


»  viKiuojno  to  " , 


L 


?a  BARBARA 


VW8HV8  <MNV$  o 


9 


AilS«3AINn  3Ht 


O    OF  CALIFORNIA 


t<4 

l"3^T" 

■  K'CUIl  3H1 


a    IME  UNIVERSITY 


I 


o  SANTA  BARBARA  3  , 


O   THE  UNTVEftSTTV    0 


4 

^ 

£ 

O  SANTA  BARBARA  "> 


0    OF  CALIFORNIA    o 


*   iQ  AKVifBII  3W   • 


O  VIV8BV9  »1WW 


0-£ 


o    JUIS33AJNO  3Ht 


UNIVERSITY 


SB 


0  SANTA  BARBARA  •  , 


e>  THE  LIBRARY  OF 


n 


mmouwz  40 


O  VHV9W9  VINVS  o 
ll 


9    AUS«3AINn  3HI    O 


o  VWB8V9  V1NVS  9 


m 


ft    JUiS)l3AINn   3Hi    9 


THE  LIBRARY  Of   « 


n 


WIN»CHI«0  JO    • 


e    THE  UNIVERSITY    o 


8 

i!r 

1 

cm 

1 

5 

ft  SANTA  BARBARA   ft 


o  worn  vxNws  0 


as 


a 


,0    AilS«3AlN/i  3H1    * 


©    OF  CALIFORNIA    e 


I 


ft    JO  W*W  3H1    ft 


'o    THE  UNIVERSITY    a 


/ 


SB 


ft  SANTA  BARBARA   ft  . 


o    TME  UNIVERSITY    o 

•lulrl! 


'o    OF  CALIFORNIA    e 


e  f  -l-CT. 


O  VgVHHV9  VlNVS  o 


/ 


o  <o  A»wa9ii  3vu  °. 


i         .1 1 


O     IJIStU'i-.f    3H1    • 


I  I 


•>    VINVCMI1V3  iO    o 


o    THE  IIBRARV  OF    o 


& 


^g 


n 


0     VINSOJIIV.    JO     « 


o  VWMV9  VtNVS  e 


9 


5ft 


JWSMAINft  3M1    o 


0    Of  CAtlfORNIA    o 


•    JO   A8««ait  3H1    O 


\ 


o  THt  UBRARY  Of   o 


0   THE  UNIVERSITY    o 


O    VINUOJlVO  JO    » 


2 

2 

1  Santa  Barbara  ° 


y£ 


SB 


O    Of  CALIFORNIA    O 
I 


u 


fiD 


=E3 — 


o    JO  AsVaSIl  3Hi   • 


O    Of  CAltfORNIA    • 

t 


jo  Amsn  am  o 


THE  UNIVERSITY    o 


i£ 


s* 


O  THE  UBRAftY 


09 


^£ 


0»    o 


n 


0    VCNSOJtlO  JO    * 


'6 


\ 


«    Of  CAtffORNJA    0 


if 


£0 


(JO 


/ 


iO  xsvaor, 


e  WVTJ8V9  WlfWS  o 
% 


as 


3m 


< ji$-3AiNr<  3H1   • 


0  THE  tIBRARV  Of   o 

e 


<tf 

rtf 

h 

t     wiNSOiiWD  *Q    *  , 


Of 


0  THE  UBRARY  Of  o 


•tf 

s 

cB 

h 

0  VBVflW?  ViNWS  0 


viNSOJinO  JO    *> 


9*: 


3*1 


0    Of  CAtlfORNIA    e 


% 


XIIS03AINO  3H1    » 


•    fC  AHVHSa  3m.    « 


\ 


«    THE  LIBRARY  Of    0 

1   S 


imr 


•   THE  UNTVttSTTY    0 


HZ" 


O    Of  CALIFORNIA    • 


,  j~-j-: 


RUSSIA   AND  EUROPE 


1 


RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 


BY 

GREGOR    ALEXINSKY 

Ex-Deputy  to  the  Duma 


TRANSLATED   FROM  THE  MANUSCRIPT 


BT 


BERNARD    MIALL 


NEW   YORK 

CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

597-599    FIFTH    AVENUE 
1917 


(All  rights  reserved) 


TO 
MY    WIFE 

G.   A. 


PREFACE 

In  Modern  Russia  I  dealt  particularly  with  all  that 
distinguishes  Russian  life  from  the  life  of  Europe. 
But  even  then  I  felt  the  necessity  of  presenting  the 
other  aspect  of  the  matter— of  showing  how  Russia 
has  Europeanized  herself,  of  summing  up  the  action 
of  European  influences  in  the  past  and  the  present 
of  the  great  Slav  Empire. 

The  happenings  of  the  present  time,  and  the  par- 
ticipation of  Russia  in  the  formidable  struggle  against 
Prussian  Imperialism,  increase  the  importance  of  the 
question  of  the  relations  between  Russia  and  the  West. 

I    shall   be   happy   if   the   present   volume   will    help 

the  English  public  to  study  these  relations. 

G.  A. 

PS. — My  sincere  thanks  are  due  to  my  translator, 
Mr.  Bernard  Miall,  for  his  valuable  collaboration,  which 
has  so  greatly  contributed  to  the  success  which  my 
works  upon  Russia  have  obtained  with  my  English 
readers . 


CONTENTS 


PART    THE    FIRST 

THE  MATERIAL   BONDS  BETWEEN 
RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

PAGE 

Chapter  I 17 

I.  The  foreign  elements  in  the  origins  of  Russian  history. 

II.  The  Byzantine  influence — The  opinion  of  a  modern 
Russian  philosopher. 

Chapter  II 22 

I.  The  appearance  of  true  European  elements — The  Han- 
seatic  League  and  itsrcommercial  relations  with  Novgorod. 

II.  Europeans  in  Russia  under  Ivan  III  and  Ivan  the 
Terrible— The  English  merchants.  III.  The  eighteenth 
century  and  the  development  of  trade  between  Russia  and 
Europe — State  monopolies  and  commercial  capitalism. 

Chapter  III 30 

I.  The  period  of  Peter  the  Great — The  problem  of  Euro- 
peanizing  the  national  economy  of  Russia.  II.  The  fore- 
runners— The  basis  of  the  economic  reforms  of  Peter  I. 

III.  Did  Peter  the  Great  wish  to  denationalize  Russia  ? — 
National  and  international  motives  in  the  programme  of 
reforms  devised  by  Peter  the  Great — Russian  mercantilism. 

IV.  The  balance-sheet  of  industrial  Europeanization  under 
Peter  the  Great — Contradiction  between  the  European  and 
Russian  elements  in  Peter's  work. 

Chapter  IV 39 

I.  Foreign  influences  under  the  successors  of  Peter  the 
Great — The  conflict  between  Western  tendencies  and  the 
Russian  system  of  government — Catherine  II — The  ukase 
of  1763.  II.  European  colonists  in  the  Russian  countryside 
— Why  is  the  Russian  moujik  poor  and  the  immigrant 
farmer  rich?     III.  The  true  method  of  "Europeanizing" 

the  economic  system  of  Russia. 

9 


10  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Chapter  V 47 

I.  European  influence  and  the  national  economy  of  the 
Russia  of  to-day — The  increase  of  imports  and  exports — 
The  general  character  of  Russia's  foreign  trade.  II. 
Human  immigration  from  Europe  into  Russia— Its  com- 
position. III.  The  penetration  of  European  capital  into 
Russia.  IV.  Its  forms  and  its  dimensions— State  loans  and 
private  industry — National  capital  and  foreign  capital  in 
Russia.  V.  The  distribution  of  foreign  capital  among  the 
various  branches  of  industry.  VI.  German  capitalism  and 
its  influence  on  the  Russian  economy. 


PART    THE    SECOND 
RUSSIA    IN    ARMS    AND    EUROPE 

Chapter  I 67 

I.  Is  the  Russian  people  warlike  ?    II.  A  little  philology 
and  arithmetic. 


74 


Chapter  II 

I.  The  struggle  for  the  shores  of  the  Baltic  Sea  as  a 
"window  facing  Europe  "—The  Livonian  wars  of  the 
fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries.  II.  The  "  Period  of  Dis- 
turbances " — The  wars  of  the  seventeenth  century— The 
Russo-Swedish  War  under  Peter  the  Great— Its  results  and 
its  influence. 

Chapter  III 86 

I.  The  war  of  1812  and  the  Russo-Swedish  War.  II.  The 
causes  of  the  war  against  Napoleon — Economic  relations 
between  Russia  and  England— The  "Continental  Blockade" 
and  its  effects  on  Russian  economy.  III.  Two  periods  of 
the  war  of  1812 — Official  patriotism  and  popular  patriotism. 
IV.  The  Holy  Alliance  and  Legitimism — The  Russian 
reaction.  V.  The  effects  of  the  war  on  the  people  and  the 
"  intellectuals  "—The  Decembrists.  VI.  The  effects  of  the 
war  in  Poland. 


Chapter  IV 

I.  The  Crimean  War— Its  origins.  II.  Causes  of  defeat — 
The  contrast  between  the  old  Russia  and  the  new  Europe. 
III.  The  Eastern  question— The  Slav  problem  and  the 
Europeanization  of  Russia. 


99 


CONTENTS  11 


PAGE 


Chapter  V 109 

I.  The  war  with  Europeanized  Japan — The  Asiatic 
question.  II.  The  German  barrier  isolating  Russia  from 
Europe — The  Baltic  Sea  and  the  Straits — The  great 
European  conflict,  and  its  general  import  from  a  Russian 
point  of  view. 


PART  THE  THIRD 
THE  EUROPEANIZATION  OF  THE  STATE 

Chapter  I 117 

I.  A  European  State  in  ancient  Russia  :  the  Free  City  of 
Novgorod.  II.  The  birth  of  the  absolute  monarchy  and 
its  conflict  with  feudalism — Western  influences  in  Russian 
feudalism. 


Chapter  II 122 

I.  Military  power  and  the  reform  of  the  State  administra- 
tion under  Peter  I — Swedish  influences.  II.  The  palace 
revolutions  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  the  influence  of 
Europe.  III.  German  domination,  and  the  anti-Germanic 
movement  under  Anna — The  participation  of  France  and 
England  in  the  coup  d'etat  of  1741 — A  Duke  of  Holstein  the 
Russian  Tsar — His  Prussophilia.  IV.  The  conspiracy  of 
1 801  and  British  diplomacy. 

Chapter   III 137 

I.  The  renaissance  of  feudalism — Catherine  II  and  the 
European  sources  of  her  ideas.  II.  Attempts  to  Euro- 
peanize  Russia  under  Alexander  I — Anglophilia — Central 
institutions — Speransky  and  his  French  loans.  III.  The 
Decembrists — The  European  elements  in  their  ideology  and 
their  actions — The  Spanish  model — The  reaction  of  Austro- 
German  origin— The  Baltic  nobles  crush  the  insurrection 
of  the  Decembrists. 


Chapter  IV 153 

I.  The  Tartaro- Prussian  Empire  under  Nicolas  I — The 
knout  and  the  shpitzruteny — The  necessity  of  reforms.  II. 
The  "  Period  of  the  Great  Reforms "  and  its  European 
sources — A  fresh  step  to  the  rear. 


12  CONTENTS 


PAGE 


Chapter  V 162 

I.  The  problem  of  national  representation  under  Alexander 
II  and  the  constitutional  movement.  II.  The  Duma — 
Foreign  elements  in  the  representative  system  in  Russia — 
Is  the  political  mentality  of  the  Russian  people  Asiatic  or 
European?    III.  Some  documents. 


PART    THE    FOURTH 

EUROPEAN  TENDENCIES  IN  RUSSIAN 
LITERATURE 

Chapter  I 181 

I.  The  theory  of  races — Non-Russian  blood  in  the  veins 
of  Russian  writers.  II.  The  formation  of  the  literary 
language  and  its  European  ingredients. 

Chapter  II 190 

I.  The  literature  of  the  people  and  the  literature  of  the 
cultivated  writers — The  first  Western  influences.  II.  The 
importation  from  Europe  of  literary  forms  and  subjects. 

Chapter  III 198 

I.  Various  European  influences  in  Russian  literature — 
Classicism,  sentimentalism,  and  romanticism — Shakespeare 
in  Russia.  II.  Russian  realism.  III.  Byronism  in  Russia — 
Dostoievsky's  opinion  of  Byronism. 


PART  THE  FIFTH 
IDEALS 

Chapter  I 211 

I.  The  first  collision  between  nationalist  ideals  and 
Western  influences — The  first  Russian  zapadnik.  II.  Two 
Muscovite  emigres.    III.  The  first  Slavophile  in  Russia. 

Chapter  II 224 

I.  The  impossibility  of  a  compromise  between  Muscovite 
Russia  and  European  tendencies.  II.  The  Russian  Vol- 
taireans — The  "  historical  superfluities  " — The  opinions  of 
Klutshevsky  and  Herzen  on  the  Russian  Voltaireans.  III. 
Radistshev  and  Novikov. 


CONTENTS  13 

PAGE 

Chapter  III 236 

I.  The  nationalist  reaction  under  Catherine  II  and  Alex- 
ander I — Shtsherbatov  and  Karainzin — The  Russian  re- 
actionaries and  the  French  Revolution — The  royalist 
emigres.  II.  The  positive  influence  of  the  ideals  of  the 
French  Revolution — Some  opinions. 


Chapter  IV ...        .  249 

I.  Catholic  influence  in  Russia — Tshaadaev  and  his  philo- 
sophy of  history.  II.  Vladimir  Soloviev  and  the  ideal  of 
the  Universal  Church. 


Chapter  V 266 

I.  The  idealist  philosophy  of  Germany — Hegelianism.  II. 
Bielinsky— The  influence  of  Schelling  and  Fichte.  III. 
Bielinsky  a  Hegelian  of  the  "  Right "  and  a  conservative 
— His  antipathy  for  French  ideals.  IV.  His  conversion — 
French  influences — Social  aspirations. 


Chapter  VI 281 

I.  Bakunin,  the  Germanophile  and  conservative.  II.  The 
Slavophiles — Their  attitude  toward  the  Europeanization  of 
Russia.  III.  European  elements  in  the  Slavianophilstvo. 
IV.  The  Slavophiles  and  the  zapadniki.  V.  Herzen's 
ideological  and  moral  crisis. 


Chapter  VII 304 

I.  Dostoievsky  and  his  contradictory  qualities.  II.  The 
disintegration  of  the  Slavianophilstvo — Katkov,  Pobiedo- 
nostzev,  and  Leontiev.  III.  The  Occidental  sources  of 
reactionary  nationalism  in  Russia. 


Chapter  VIII 3" 

I.  The  zapadnitshestvo  triumphant.  II.  Nihilism — Its 
European  origin — Dobrolubov  and  Pisarev — The  "  destruc- 
tion of  aesthetics'* — Nihilism  and  Anarchism — Pisarev's 
opinion  of  the  French  and  English— The  social  problem 
and  "  aesthetics."  III.  Tshernyshevsky — His  materialism 
— The  popularization  of  Occidental  ideas — Tshernyshevsky 
and  Feuerbach— The  secularization  of  Russian  thought — 
English  influences. 


14  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Chapter  IX 324 

I.  Socialism  in  Russia — Socialism  and  religion.  II.  The 
earliest  European  influences — Saint-Simonism  in  Russia. 
III.  Fourier  and  Robert  Owen.  IV.  The  narodnitshestvo  and 
Marxism— The  "Bakunists"  in  Russia.  V.  "Blanquism" 
in  Russia — Terrorism.  VI.  Philosophy  and  the  reality — 
The  present  situation  of  the  narodnitshestvo  and  Marxism. 


Conclusion 351 

Index       • 353 


PART   THE    FIRST 

THE  MATERIAL   BONDS   BETWEEN 
RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 


RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 


CHAPTER    I 

I.  The  foreign  elements  in  the  origins  of  Russian  history.  II.  The 
Byzantine  influence — The  opinion  of  a  modern  Russian  philo- 
sopher. 

I 

The  origins  of  Russian  history  present  us  v/ith  two 
half-real,  half-legendary  factors  :  the  foundation  of  the 
first  principalities  and  the  "  baptism,  of  Russia."  In 
both  popular  tradition  admitted  an  active  participation 
of  foreign  elements. 

According  to  legend,  the  Russians  of  the  ninth 
century  had  as  yet  no  organized  States,  but  were  living 
in  discord.  Weary  of  this  anarchy,  they  are  said  to 
have  applied  to  foreign  princes  (Varangian  or  Scandi- 
navian), and  to  have  said  : — 

'  Our  soil  is  wide  and  fruitful,  but  order  is  lacking 
there.      Be  our  princes   and  come  to  govern  us." 

And  three  Varangian  princes  are  said  to  have  con- 
sented to  come  into  Russia  and  to  have  founded  three 
principalities   in  the  north. 

Foreigners  also  created  the  principality  of  Kiev, 
whose  first  sovereigns  bore  names  of  Scandinavian 
origin  :  as  Igor  (from  Ingvar)  and  Olga  (from 
Helghi)/  etc. 

As  for  the  "  baptism  of  Russia,"  which  took  place 
in  the  year  988  A.D.,  popular  legend  has  handed  down 
the  story. 

Prince    Vladimir    the     Holy,    dissatisfied     with    the 

2  „ 


18  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

paganism  of  his  subjects,  is  said  to  have  sought  to 
put  an  end  thereto.  With  this  object  in  view,  he 
is  related  to  have  sent  into  various  countries  special 
envoys  who  were  instructed  to  make  a  study  of  their 
religions.  The  religion,  or  rather  the  ritual,  which 
charmed  him  most  was  the  Byzantine.  Thereupon 
Vladimir  is  reported  to  have  invited  the  priests  of 
the  various  cults  to  repair  to  Kiev,  there  to  explain 
to  him  their  character  and  their  advantages.  As  a 
result  of  this  competition  the  Prince  of  Kiev  is  said 
to  have  set  his  choice  on  the  Orthodox  Byzantine 
Church,  which  thereupon  became  the  Orthodox  Russian 
Church. 

In  order  to  grasp  the  possibility  of  this  extraordinary 
admixture  of  Greek  and  Scandinavian  contributions  in 
the  first  phase  of  the  historical  period,  we  must 
remember  that  Russia  formed  the  connecting  link 
between  Scandinavia  and  Byzantium.  Thus  we  may 
say  that  in  the  dawn  of  her  history  Russia  served  as 
intermediary  between  West  and  East,  if  we  admit  that 
her  two  neighbours  represented  the  two  general 
types . 

But  what  I  chiefly  wish  to  emphasize  is  the  role 
of  the  State  in  this  first  introduction  of  foreign 
elements  :  the  Scandinavians  entered  the  State  in  the 
quality  of  princes  and  organizers — in  short,  of 
governors  ;  while  the  Greeks  brought  their  religion 
into  the  State  on  the  prince's  invitation.  We  shall 
see  that  down  to  our  own  days  authority  in  Russia 
has  continued  to  favour  the  foreigner,  often  even  to 
the  detriment  of  the  native  Russian. 

II 

The  bond  connecting  Scandinavia  with  Byzantium, 
across  the  wide  Russian  plain,  which  embraced  two 
points  of  great  importance,  one  in  the  region  of 
Novgorod  and  one  in  that  of  Kiev,  could  not  long 
hold  fast. 

The  Scandinavian  influence,  powerful  enough  at  the 


THE  MATERIAL  BONDS  19 

outset,1  waned  very  rapidly  ;  for  shortly  after  "  the 
coming  of  the  Varangian  princes  "  (in  862  A.D.,  accord- 
ing to  the  Russian  chronicles)  no  trace  of  their  northern 
principalities  was  left.  Some  centuries  later,  it  is  true, 
Russia  was  again  to  encounter  Scandinavia  ;  not  the 
Scandinavia  which  sent  her  brigand-princes  to  govern 
her,  but  the  kingdom  of  Sweden,  with  its  twelfth 
Charles,  the  object  of  the  simultaneous  hatred  and 
admiration  of   Peter   the   Great. 

In  the  meantime  Northern  Russia  was  subjected  to 
Western  influence  in  another  form  :  by  its  close  rela- 
tions with  the  commercial  League  of  the  "  Free 
Towns  "  of  the  Hansa,  which  greatly  contributed  to 
the  development  of  two  of  the  great  Russian  Free  Towns 
— Novgorod  and  Pskov,  and  to  which  I  shall  refer 
later  on. 

The  Byzantine  influence  succumbed  before  the 
invasion  of  the  Asiatic  hordes,  which  seized  upon 
Southern  Russia,  thus  cutting  it  off  from  Byzantium. 
But  the  Eastern  Empire,  for  the  Russia  of  the  tenth 
and  eleventh  centuries,  was  the  road  to  the  civilization 
of  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Adriatic.  Hence  the 
interruption  of  relations  with  Byzantium  was  greatly 
to  be  deplored.  The  celebrated  Russian  historian  S. 
Soloviev  says  in  this  connection  :  's  The  nomads  not 
merely  attacked  Russia,  but  they  cut  her  off  from 
the  shores  of  the  Black  Sea  and  destroyed  her  com- 
munications with  Byzantium.  .  .  .  Asiatic  barbarism 
strove  to  deprive  Russia  of  all  the  roads  and  all  the 
breathing  spaces  opening  upon  cultivated  Europe." 

Another  great  Russian  historian,  V.  Klutshevsky,  ex- 
presses the  same  idea  :  "A  thousand  years  of  the 
hostile  neighbourhood  of  the  rapacious  Asiatic  nomads 
will  by  itself  justify  many  times  over  the  absence  of 
the  European  spirit  in  the  history  of  Russia." 

1  The  title  of  kniaz  (prince)  which  the  Russian  Slavs  employed  to 
designate  the  head  of  the  State  is  borrowed  from  the  Scandinavian, 
and  is  only  a  modification  of  the  Scandinavian  title  of  kunning. 


20  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

In  my  Modern  Russia  >  I  have  already  explained 
the  general  consequences  entailed  by  the  invasion  of 
the  steppes  of  Southern  Russia  by  the  Asiatic  hordes. 
We  know  that  the  principal  result  was  the  displace- 
ment of  the  centre  of  economic  and  political  gravity, 
which  shifted  from  the  region  of  Kiev  to  that  of  Moscow 
and  Vladimir.  Muscovite  Russia  was  for  a  long  time 
deprived  of  her  relations  with  Byzantium,  and  lost  even 
all  contact  with  the  Russia  of  the  South-West — that 
is,  with  Volhynian  and  Galician  Russia,  the  most  highly 
Europeanized  and  civilized  of  all  the  principalities  of 
the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries.  It  was  at  this  time 
that  Volhynia  and  Galicia  began  to  lead  a  separate 
existence,  and  at  a  later  date  were  subjected  to  the 
influence  of  Poland. 

As  to  the  Byzantine  influence  in  itself,  and  the  loss 
which  Russia  must  have  suffered  in  being  deprived  of 
this  influence  in  the  twelfth  century,  the  various  Russian 
authors  are  in  disagreement.  A  contemporary  publicist 
and  philosopher  of  some  considerable  repute,  Professor 
Boulgakov  (a  Neo-Slavophil),  endeavoured  quite  recently 
to  attribute  a  great  importance  to  the  role  of  the 
Byzantine  factor  : — 

"  The  Oriental  orthodoxy  of  Byzantium  contains,  in 
potential,  all  Hellenism  in  its  immortal  worth.  In 
general  Hellenism  is  a  principle  of  natural  orthodoxy. 
.  .  .  This  is  why,  in  the  heritage  of  Greek  civiliza- 
tion, our  own  share  is  richer  tjian  that  of  the  West, 
the  legatee  of  Hellenism  by  an  indirect  path,  by  the 
intervention  of  the  Roman  Church,  and,  at  a  later 
date  only,  of  Humanism  by  a  pagan  restoration."2 

To  this  pretentious  assertion,  which  seeks  to  invest 
Russia  with  a  kind  of  supremacy  over  Western  Europe, 
we  can  easily  oppose  a  few  positive  and  decisive  facts. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  true  that  Byzantium 
received  the  legacy  of  pure  Hellenism  while  the  West 
knew    it    only    by    a    deformation.      On    the    contrary, 

1  Modern  Russia,  trans.  Bernard  Miall,  T.  Fisher  Unwin,  1914. 

3  S.  Boulgakov,  The  War  and  the  Russian  Mind  (Moscow,  1915),  p.  33. 


THE  MATERIAL  BONDS  21 

it  was  Byzantium  which  distorted  the  original 
Hellenism.  For  the  democracies  of  antiquity  it  sub- 
stituted a  semi-Oriental  monarchical  regime  ;  for  free- 
dom of  belief,  expressing  itself  in  a  free  art  which 
seized  the  imagination,  a  dry  and  scholastic  "  ortho- 
doxy "  which  amounted  to  iconoclasm.  There  was  no 
real  return  to  "  Hellenism  "  save  by  that  very  "  pagan 
restoration  "  which  was  the  Renaissance. 

Assertions  such  as  those  of  M.  Boulgakov  would 
induce  us  to  believe  that  the  influence  of  Byzantium 
on  ancient  Russia  was  purely  spiritual,  and  was  destined 
to  teach  the  "  eternal  meanings  of  Hellenism."  In 
reality,  the  Greeks  who  came  to  Russia  and  the  Russians 
who  went  to  Tsargrad  (Constantinople)  were  not  con- 
cerned with  these  abstractions.  The  true  motive  of 
their  relations  was  commercial,  as  was  the  principal 
motive  of  the  relations  between  Russia  and  Scandinavia, 
for  the  Scandinavian  dynasties,  the  creators  of  the  first 
Russian  principalities,  were  at  once  brigands  and 
merchants.  It  was  by  following  in  the  footsteps  of 
the  Greek  merchants  that  the  Greek  priests  brought 
orthodoxy  to  Kiev.  And  if  the  Byzanto-Russian  and 
Russo -Scandinavian  relations  were  broken  off  in  the 
twelfth  century,  it  was  because  the  commercial  high- 
way "  from  the  Greeks  to  the  Varangians  "  was  closed. 


CHAPTER    II 

I.  The  appearance  of  true  European  elements — The  Hanseatic  League 
and  its  commercial  relations  with  Novgorod.  II.  Europeans  in 
Russia  under  Ivan  III  and  Ivan  the  Terrible— The  English 
merchants.  III.  The  eighteenth  century  and  the  development  of 
trade  between  Russia  and  Europe — State  monopolies  and  commer- 
cial capitalism. 

I 

While  the  southern  regions  remained  completely 
isolated  by  the  invasion  of  the  nomads,  the  north  of 
Russia  maintained  and  developed  its  exchanges  with 
the  West  :  in  the  thirteenth  century,  for  example,  the 
Hanseatic  League  held  a  considerable  place  in  the 
trade  of  Novgorod. 

Modern  historians  have  proved  that  even  at  the 
period  of  the  principality  of  Kiev  foreign  trade 
was  assuming  a  prominent  place  in  Russian  life. 
For  example,  M.  Nicolas  Rojkov  states  that  during 
this  period  agriculture  and  industry  occupied  a 
secondary  position.  Hunting  and  agriculture,  or  rather 
the  gathering  of  honey  in  the  woods,  were  the  principal 
occupations.  Foreign  trade,  on  the  contrary,  or,  more 
precisely,  the  exportation  through  the  princes  and  their 
companions  of  what  they  obtained  by  hunting,  honey, 
and  all  that  the  princes  received  from  the  population 
as  dani  (taxes  paid  in  kind),  was  much  in  vogue. 
The  aristocracy  sent  their  merchandise  to  Byzantium, 
where  they  exchanged  it  for  weapons,  wine,  stuffs,  etc. 
But  these  relations,  confined  to  a  minority,  were  of  no 
immediate  interest  to  the  great  masses  of  the  people. 

In    Novgorod    and    Pskov    the    position    was    quite 

22 


THE   MATERIAL  BONDS  23 

different.  There  the  bulk  of  the  population  traded 
and  lived  by  trade.  Agriculture  occupied  a  secondary 
place  in  the  regions  of  Novgorod  and  of  Pskov  as 
well  as  in  that  of  Kiev.  The  activities  of  these  regions 
were  absorbed  by  foreign  trade.  The  local  chronicles, 
and  the  popular  poetry  also,  give  irrefutable  evidence  of 
this  fact.  Who  is  the  principal  hero  of  the  bylinas  — 
that  is,  the  epic  songs  of  Novgorod?  Sadko  the  Rich, 
the  merchant,  mighty  not  by  the  sword  but  by  the  purse. 

The  trade  of  Novgorod  extended  over  a  much  vaster 
region,  and  included  a  much  larger  quantity  of  products, 
than  the  trade  of  Kiev.  Skins,  butter,  fat,  meat,  flax, 
honey,  wool,  wheat,  etc.,  were  bought  by  the  merchants 
of  Novgorod  in  various  parts  of  Russia  and  were  sold 
or  exchanged  for  foreign  merchandise. 

"  Commercial  interests  led  foreign  merchants  and 
adventurers  along  the  waterways  of  inland  Russia,  and 
laid  the  foundations  of  the  Russian  State.  On  the 
success  of  external  trade  was  based  the  ephemeral 
wealth  of  the  region  of  Kiev,  which  became  im- 
poverished and  lost  its  political  influence  with  the 
disorganization  of  this  trade.  What  really  was  the 
importance,  in  the  trade  of  Kiev,  of  the  foreign 
merchants,  we  can  only  imagine  and  conjecture,  owing 
to  the  lack  of  precise  data.  But  as  regards  the  role 
of  foreign  intermediaries  in  the  trade  of  Novgorod 
it  is  already  perfectly  evident.  The  '  Gothic  '  and 
1  German  '  '  courts  '  or  '  yards,'  founded  in  Novgorod 
in  the  twelfth  century  by  the  merchants  of  Gothland 
and  Liibeck,  and  united  in  the  fourteenth  century  under 
the  direction  of  the  Free  Towns  of  the  Hanseatic 
League,  monopolized,  for  some  centuries,  all  the  Russian 
trade  passing  through  Novgorod.  The  attempt  on  the 
part  of  the  men  of  Novgorod  to  found  a  Russian  com- 
pany which  should  trade  with  foreign  countries  did 
not  enable  them  to  create  their  own  merchant  fleet, 
and  the  oversea  voyages  of  certain  Russian  merchants 
in  foreign  boats,  and  even  the  warehousing  of  Russian 
merchandise  in  foreign  countries,  were  only  the  isolated 


24  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

attempts  of  individual  venturers.  The  Novogorodians 
had  to  content  themselves  with  the  role  of  monopolist- 
middlemen  between  the  buyers  of  merchandise  in 
Northern  and  South-Eastern  Russia  and  the  factories 
of  the  Hanseatic  League.  The  foreign  trade  of  Russia 
was  able  to  free  itself  from  the  Hanseatic1  domination 
only  when  the  foreign  competitors  of  the  League  came 
to  its  assistance  ;  when,  by  their  own  efforts,  they 
opened  up  means  of  direct  access  to  Russian 
merchandise.  In  the  fifteenth  century,  and  early 
in  the  sixteenth,  these  competitors  were  the  Swedish 
traders  and  the  towns  of  Livonia,  which  drew  the  move- 
ment of  merchandise  into  another  direction  than  that 
familiar  to  the  trade  of  the  Hansa  towns.  In  their 
footsteps  appeared  the  representatives  of  the  principal 
capitalistic  nations  of  the  new  Europe,  whose  merchan- 
dise had  until  then  formed  the  object  of  the  Hansa 
trade.     These  were  the  English  and  the  Dutch."  l 

At  the  same  time,  the  city  of  Novgorod  began  to 
make  way,  in  the  matter  of  external  trade,  for  the 
city  of  Moscow. 

II 

Under  Ivan  III  (145 2- 1505)  Russia  was  delivered 
from  the  Tartar  yoke,  and  under  Ivan  the  Terrible 
(1534-89)  the  principality  of  Moscow  established 
direct  economic  relations  with  Europe.  In  the  fifteenth 
century  there  came  to  Moscow  those  European  traders 
and  artisans  who  "  laid  the  foundations  of  the  principal 
urban  trades."  The  first  comers  were  for  the  most 
part  Italians.  Architects,  engineers,  experienced 
physicians,  masters  and  artisans  of  various  crafts, 
were  called  from  Italy  to  Moscow.  Among  them  were 
celebrated  masters  like  Fioraventi-Aristoteles  (of  Venice 
or  Bologna),  Petro  Antonio,  and  Marcus  Albysius. 
Aristoteles  taught  the  Muscovites  how  to  make  bricks 
and  lime  and  the  use  of  machinery  ;   he  founded  cannon 

*  P.   Milukov,  Studies    in    the    History    of   Russian  Culture,  Part  I, 
pp.  105-6  (1st  ed.,  Russian,  Petersburg,  1900). 


THE   MATERIAL  BONDS  25 

and  constructed  a  floating  bridge  near  Novgorod.  "  He 
was  the  renovator  of  many  crafts  in  Russia." 

From  this  time  onward  the  influence  of  Europe  in  the 
economic  life  of  Russia  increased  by  leaps  and  bounds. 

In  the  sixteenth  century,  under  Ivan  the  Terrible, 
Russia  became  for  the  first  time  the  theatre  of  an 
energetic  rivalry  between  the  traders  of  Germany  and 
England.  The  Germans  had  long  maintained  relations 
with  Russia  by  way  of  Novgorod.  The  English  arrived 
in  Russia  by  chance  :  an  English  expedition  went  astray 
in  the  Arctic  Ocean  and  eventually  reached  the  Russian 
coast.  The  Tsar,  Ivan  the  Terrible,  having  received 
the  news  of  the  strangers'  arrival,  expressed  to  them 
his  ardent  desire  that  permanent  relations  might  be 
established  between  their  country  and  his  kingdom, 
and  the  town  of  Arkangelsk  or  Archangel  became 
the  base  of  the  Anglo-Russian  trade. 

In  1566  Ivan  the  Terrible  addressed  himself  to 
Elizabeth  through  the  British  Ambassador,  Jenkinson, 
begging  her  to  send  to  Russia  some  good  artisans  and 
craftsmen.  The  Queen  granted  his  request,  and  in 
1567  sent  him  an  English  physician,  Reynolds; 
a  pharmacist,  Thomas  Curwin  ;  an  engineer,  Humfry 
Lock,  with  his  assistant,  John  Fenton  ;  a  goldsmith, 
Thomas   Green  ;     and   other   specialists. 

In  1569  the  Tsar  granted  some  English  manu- 
facturers a  patent  for  the  establishment  of  a  metal- 
lurgical works  at  Vytchegda,  in  the  Government  of 
Vologda.  The  English  penetrated  yet  farther,  into  the 
Ural  Mountains,  and  prospected  for  iron-mines  in  the 
region  of  Perm. 

Ivan  the  Terrible  also  sent  a  special  envoy  to 
Germany  to  obtain  the  same  services  from  the  German 
Emperor,  and  to  recruit  in  Germany  some  hundreds  of 
"  learned  men,  artists,  and  artisans." 

But  the  preference  of  Ivan  IV  was  given  to  the 
English,  and  the  English  merchants,  thanks  to  privi- 
leges granted  to  them  by  the  Tsar,  entered  the  lists 
in  opposition  to  the  German  traders,  who  were  grouped 


26  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

under  the  Hanseatic  League  and  who  traded  through 
Novgorod.  The  importation  of  English  cloth  and  linen 
was  fatal  to  German  competition,  already  enfeebled 
by  the  general  decline  of  the  economic  activity  of 
Novgorod.  This  market  was  ruined  by  the  Muscovite 
sovereigns,  who  could  not  endure  the  existence  of  a 
free  city,  with  a  government  almost  republican,  side 
by  side   with  their  own  monarchical  State. 

The  sympathies  of  Ivan  the  Terrible  for  the  English 
were  such  that  he  was  called  "the  English  Tsar," 
and  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  England1  declared  that 
in  no  other  country  did  her  trade  bring  her  such  profits 
as  in  Russia.1 

Ill 

I  have  explained,  in  my  Modern  Russia,  the  general 
nature  of  the  economic  evolution,  or  revolution  rather, 
which  occurred  in  the  Russia  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
Then  it  was  that  the  internal  market  was  unified,  and 
relations  and  stable  connections  were  established 
between  the  various  regions  of  the  country,  under 
the  influence  of  an   intensive  commercial  exchange. 

The  foreign  element  played  a  most  important  part 
in  the  birth  of  the  new  state  of  affairs,  as  it  greatly 
contributed  to  the  development  of  the  movement  of 
trade  along  the  two  principal  trade  routes  :  that  from 
Novgorod  to  Moscow  and  that  from  Archangel  to 
Moscow. 

But  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  this 
economic  development  was  interrupted  by  a  great 
political  crisis,  known  as  the  "  Period  of  Disturbances," 
which  lasted  until  the  year  1613,  and  the  installation 
on  the  Muscovite  throne  of  the  Tsar  Mikhail  Feodoro- 
vitch,  the  first  representative  of  the  House  of  Romanov. 

Under  this  Tsar  and  his  successor,  Alexei  Mikhailo- 
vitch,  the  economic  relations  with  the  outer  world  were 
rapidly  multiplied  and   became  increasingly   complex . 

1  G.  Schultze-Gavernitz,  Studies  in  the  National  and  Political  Economy 
of  Russia  (Russian  trans.,  Petersburg,  1900),  p.  6. 


THE   MATERIAL  BONDS  27 

Among  the  most  noteworthy  phenomena  of  the 
economic  history  of  Russia  in  the  seventeenth  century 
we  find,  in  the  first  place,  the  multiplication  of  exchanges 
with  Europe.  After  the  English,  who  contrived  to 
establish  their  factories  along  the  entire  route  from 
Archangel  to  Moscow,  other  Europeans  began  to  trade 
in  Russia  :  and  firstly  the  Dutch,  who  used  the  route 
from  the  Arctic  Ocean  and  the  White  Sea,  as  did 
the  English,  and  also  the  Baltic  route,  as  did  the 
Germans,  the  Danes,  and  the  Swedes.  As  early  as 
1603  we  find  an  English  writer  complaining  that  after 
seventy  years  of  extensive  trade  with  Russia  the 
English  were  beginning  to  be  outstripped  by  the 
Dutch.  At  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century  a  report 
was  presented  to  the  States-General  of  the  Nether- 
lands, whose  author  asserted  that  the  maritime  trade 
with  Russia  might  be  as  profitable  to  Dutch  traders 
as  the  trade  with  Spain — that  is,  with  America,  through 
the  medium  of  Spain.  "  Neither  Germany  nor  our 
Netherlands,"  he  positively  stated,  "  can  dispense  with 
trading  with  Russia."  Russia  had  therefore  become, 
at  this  period,  a  necessary  factor  of  the  world's  trade. 

Muscovite  Russia,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  bene- 
fited by  international  exchanges  in  a  twofold  manner. 
On  the  one  hand,  she  served  as  a  means  of  com- 
munication between  West  and  East,  Europe  and  Asia. 
She  bought  Oriental  merchandise  (for  example,  silk, 
in  Persia)  and  delivered  it  to  Western  commerce. 
Silk  occupying  a  place  of  enormous  importance  in  the 
commercial  life  of  the  time,  both  private  individuals 
and  European  Governments  endeavoured  more  than 
once  to  obtain  free  transit  through  Russia  for  their 
communications  with  Persia,  the  principal  source  of 
this  precious  commodity. 

In  1 61 4  a  representative  of  England  (John  Merik) 
came  to  demand,  in  the  name  of  his  king,  the  right 
to  make  use  of  the  Volga  highway.  In  1629  a  French 
ambassador  presented  a  similar  claim.  In  1630  the 
Dutch  followed  suit.      But   the   Muscovite   Government 


28  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

invited    all    these    claimants    to    procure    their    Persian 
goods  by  buying  them  of  the  Russians. 

The  traders  of  the  duchy  of  Holstein  were  more 
fortunate  :  they  obtained  the  monopoly  of  the  trade 
with  Persia  for  an  annual  payment  to  Russia  of 
600,000  efimoks— about  5,000,000  roubles.  But  it 
appeared  that  "  in  Holstein  theory  was  stronger  than 
practice,  and  that  the  folk  of  this  country  knew  more 
of  ciphering  than  of  payment.  When  it  came  to  paying, 
the  necessary  money  was  lacking,  and  the  ambitious 
enterprise  came  to  a  very  pitiable  end  in  a  diplo- 
matic quarrel  between  the  Government  of  the  Tsar 
Mikhail  and  the  Duke  Frederick."  » 

In  general  the  Government  preferred  not  to  allow 
Europeans  to  cross  its  territory  in  order  to  reach  its 
eastern  frontiers,  being  loth  to  lose  the  profits  which 
the  trade  with  Asia  assured  to  the  Treasury.  It  even 
went  so  far  as  to  seek  to  monopolize,  for  its  own 
profit,  the  exportation  and  sale  to  foreign  countries 
of  'a  portion  of  the  native  commodities,  notably  of  skins 
and  articles  made  of  leather,  furs,  caviare,  wheat,  etc. 

In  1630  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands  pro- 
posed through  a  special  ambassador  an  ambitious  plan 
to  exploit  and  "  valorize,"  by  means  of  Dutch  capital, 
the  agricultural  and  forestal  resources  of  Russia.  It 
was  proposed  to  grow  vast  crops  of  wheat  for  ex- 
portation, and  also  to  exploit  the  vast  forests  lying 
along  the  banks  of  the  Northern  Dvina.  But  the 
Government  decided  to  keep  the  trade  in  Russian  pro- 
ducts in  its  own  hands.  It  admitted  the  principle 
of  the  monopoly  while  preferring  to  apply  it  on  its 
own  account.  It  also  established  a  series  of  com- 
mercial regies — for  example,  that  of  alcohol — which  was 
resuscitated  by  Count  Witte  at  the  end  of  the  nineteenth 
century  and  abolished  in  1 9 1 4  at  the  beginning  of 
the  war. 

In  the  exploitation  of  these  regies  the  Government, 
in    the    seventeenth    century,     employed    the    wealthy 

■  M.  Pokrovsky,  Russian  History,  vol.  i.  p.  95  (Russian  ed.). 


THE   MATERIAL  BONDS  28 

merchants  as  its  agents  and  representatives.  These 
intermediaries  made  large  private  profits  by  the 
purchase  and  sale  of  the  State  commodities.  If,  as 
an  English  author  says,  "the  Tsar  was  the  first 
merchant  in  his  dominions,"  other  merchants  also 
enriched  themselves  by  monopolizing  foreign  trade,  and 
they  began  to  form  a  powerful  corporation  of  capitalists, 
to  which,  moreover,  foreigners  trading  with  Russia  had 
access,  sometimes  holding  an  important  place  therein. 
These  foreigners,  with  more  experience  and  capital, 
became  the  rivals  even  of  the  Russians,  and  in  certain 
respects  supplanted  them  :  for  instance,  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  seventeenth  century,  Kilburger  reported 
that  all  the  trade  of  Archangel  was  centred  in  the 
hands  of  a  few  Dutchmen  and  merchants  of  Ham- 
burg and  Bremen,  who  had  their  representatives  and 
their  clerks  in  Moscow. 

At  this  time  there  was  a  sudden  increase  of  imports 
also,  which  assumed  considerable  proportions  ;  for 
example,  in  1671  there  were  imported  into  Russia, 
through  the  port  of  Archangel,  2,477,  tons  of  herrings, 
783,000  needles,  5  tons  of  colours,  809  barrels  of 
indigo,  28,457  reams  of  paper,   1,957  bars  of  iron,  etc. 

Thus,  under  the  influence  of  foreign  relations, 
developed  that  commercial  capitalism  whose  formation 
fills  the  history  of  the  seventeenth  century.  From 
foreign  trade  it  spread  to  internal  trade  ;  but  indus- 
trial production,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  still  retained 
the  characteristics  of  la  petite  Industrie,  industrial 
capitalism  dating  only  from  the  reign  of  Peter  the 
Great.  However,  in  some  parts  of  the  south  and  west 
(as  in  the  Ukraine),  and  above  all  in  those  parts  which 
were  in  dispute  between  Russia  and  Poland,  there 
existed  before  the  days  of  Peter  the  Great  an  already 
somewhat  extensive  industry  (including  distilleries, 
making  a  corn  spirit,  glassworks,  foundries,  etc.). 
Here,  again,  we  mark  the  increasing  influence  of 
Europe,  which  traversed  Poland  and  had  its  two 
maritime  centres  at  Riga  and  Konigsberg. 


CHAPTER     III 

I.  The  period  of  Peter  the  Great — The  problem  of  Europeanizing  the 
national  economy  of  Russia.  II.  The  forerunners— The  basis  of 
the  economic  reforms  of  Peter  I.  III.  Did  Peter  the  Great  wish 
to  denationalize  Russia  ? — National  and  international  motives  in 
the  programme  of  reforms  devised  by  Peter  the  Great — Russian 
mercantilism.  IV.  The  balance-sheet  of  industrial  Europeanization 
under  Peter  the  Great — Contradiction  between  the  European  and 
Russian  elements  in  Peter's  work. 

I 

The  reforms  of  Peter  the  Great  have  been  much  dis- 
cussed. Some  regard  his  work  of  reform  as  a  veritable 
Europeanization  of  the  country,  a  cataclysm  almost,  in 
which  the  ancient  Russia,  Muscovite  and  Asiatic, 
perished,  and  out  of  which  emerged  the  new,  civilized, 
European  Russia.  Others,  on  the  contrary,  are  inclined 
to  deny  that  the  influence  of  Peter  the  Great  was  of  this 
character,  and  to  regard  it  as  far  more  limited  in  scope. 

In  addition  to  this  genetic  and  historical  problem,  a 
question  of  teleological  import  arises.  Was  the  work 
of  Peter  the  Great  really  positive  and  useful?  Or,  as 
many  Slavophiles  assert,  did  Russia  merely  suffer,  as 
a  result  of  this  sovereign's  efforts,  a  depravation  of 
her  normal  existence,  a  morbid  and  harmful  crisis, 
artificially  provoked  in  the  course  of  her  natural  and 
logical  development? 

The  best,  that  is,  the  surest  means  of  judging  objec- 
tively these  controversial  questions,  and  of  deriving  solid 
instruction  therefrom,  is  to  analyse  the  economic  pheno- 
mena of  the  reign  of  Peter  the  Great.  For  although  it 
is  fairly  easy  to  "  reform  "  a  few  juridical  statutes  and 

30 


THE   MATERIAL   BONDS  31 

other  external  manifestations  of  the  public  authority, 
the  national  economy  of  a  people,  which  is  the  true 
and  intimate  substance  of  its  social  and  political  exist- 
ence, is  far  more  refractory  to  force.  Reforms  are 
valued  by  their  economic  results  ;  if  their  imprint  on 
the  life  of  the  people  is  profound,  if  they  have  con- 
tributed to  its  development,  we  may  admit  that  their 
influence  is  important  ;  but  if  they  have  merely  grazed 
the  surface  of  life  they  fall  into  place  merely  as 
negligible  incidents. 

II 

The  first  appearance  in  Russia  of  industry  on  the 
large  scale,  the  creation  of  the  first  large  factories  and 
workshops,  is  very  often  referred  to  the  period  of  Peter 
the  Great,  and  is  attributed  to  the  exclusive  influence 
of  the  foreigners  in  Russia.  "  Peter  the  Great  was  the 
true  creator  and  the  great  teacher  of  Russian  industry," 
says   M.   Ischchanian,   the   Armenian  economist.1 

It  must  be  noted,  however,  that  industry  on  the  large 
scale  was  not  unknown  in  Russia  before  the  reign  of 
Peter  the  Great.  A  century  and  a  half  earlier  it  was 
already  in  existence  ;  the  first  paper-mill  was  estab- 
lished under  Ivan  the  Terrible,  as  was  also  the  first 
printing-press.  In  the  seventeenth  century  other  works 
were  established  ;  the  first  cloth-weaving  establishment 
was  founded  in  1650  by  a  foreigner  (Johann  of 
Sweden).  Metallurgy  was  even  earlier  in  the  field  ;  in 
1632  the  Government  granted  to  Vinius,  a  Dutchman, 
a  patent  to  found  and  exploit  a  large  foundry,  and 
two  years  later  another  foreigner  (Kojet)  obtained 
permission  to  erect  a  glass-works. 

This  proves  that  wholesale  industry  and  the  participa- 
tion of  foreigners  preceded  the  advent  of  Peter  the 
Great. 

Before  his  time,  it  is  true,  the  small  industry  pre- 
dominated ;    the  birth  of  great  undertakings  was  merely 

1  B.  Ischchanian,  Die  Ausliindischen  Elctnenie  in  der  Russischen  Volks- 
mrtscha/i  (Berlin,  1913),  p.  19. 


32  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

a  sporadic  phenomenon,  and  it  was  only  after  his  reign 
that  it  became  regular  and  systematic.  Nevertheless, 
in  order  that  this  transformation  should  be  possible,  a 
material  foundation  was  essential,  which  did,  in  fact,  exist. 

"  In  Russia,  before  Peter  the  Great,  there  was  no 
industrial  capitalism,  but  a  commercial  capitalism  was 
already  completely  developed.  The  concentration  of 
commercial  capital  which  we  observe  in  this  Russia 
was  not  due  to  governmental  measures,  but  to  the 
spontaneous  development  of  trade  and  the  recognition 
of  the  advantages  presented  by  commerce  on  a  large 
scale  as  compared  with  petty  trading.  It  was  pre- 
cisely this  commercial  capital  which  furnished  the 
foundation  of  the  greater  industries  under  Peter  the 
Great.  To  convince  ourselves  of  this  we  need  only 
consult  the  lists  of  contemporary  manufacturers  ;  we 
shall  see  that,  contrary  to  a  very  prevalent  idea,  they 
were,  in  a  great  majority,  purely  Russian,  and  belonged 
to  the  corporation  or  guild  of  merchants."  l 

Such  is  the  verdict  of  Professor  Toughan-Baranovsky, 
the  leading  historian  of  Russian  industry. 

'■'  The  foreigners  and  the  nobles  owned1  only  an  in- 
significant proportion  of  the  factories  existing  under 
Peter  I.  .  .  .  The  owners  of  the  greater  number  of 
these  concerns  were  Muscovite  capitalists  of  the  old 
stock — merchants.  The  fact  that  they  were  so  shows 
that  the  greater  industries  developed  in  a  favourable 
environment,  created  by  the  whole  past  of  the  Muscovite 
State,  more  especially  in  the  heart  of  the  great  com- 
mercial world.  This  environment  was  not  the  work 
of  Peter  ;  without  it,  industry  on  the  larger  scale  would 
have  found  it  impossible,  in  Russia,  to  attain  any  con- 
siderable extension."  2 

But,  as  we  know,  commercial  capitalism  on  the 
greater  scale  was  able  to  wax  fat  and  increase  in 
Muscovite  Russia  only  thanks  to  foreign  relations.     Con- 

1  M.    Toughan-Baranovsky,    The  Russian    Factory  in   the  Past  and 
Present,  vol.  i.  p.  8  (Petersburg,  1898,  Russian  ed.). 
*  Ibid.,  pp.  10,  11. 


THE   MATERIAL  BONDS  33 

sequently  we  are  justified  in  saying  that  the  exchanges 
with  Europe  rendered  the  advent  of  the  great  Russian 
industries  possible  by,  affording  them  the  necessary- 
soil . 

As  for  the  part  played  by  Peter  the  Great  and  his 
Government,  it  translated  itself  chiefly  in  measures 
which  were  half-encouraging  and  half-coercive,  but 
which  were  designed  to  attract  commercial  capital  to 
the  business  of  industrial  production.  ,WJe  know  what 
these  measures  were  :  privileges  and  monopolies  for 
the  founders  of  industrial  undertakings,  State  contracts 
to  supply  the  army  and  navy,  etc.  To  the  period  of 
Peter  the  Great,  therefore,  we  must  refer  the  origin 
of  those  close  relations  between  the  Government  and 
the  great  commercial  capitalists  which  even  to-day 
appear  as  one  of  the  most  characteristic  traits  of  Russia, 
and  are  of  great  significance.  On  account  of  these 
relations  the  wealthy  middle  classes  of  Russia  are  always 
|  greatly  subject  to  the  action  of  the  State,  which  has 
formed  the  habit  of  intervening  in  the  economic  life 
of  the  nation  and  of  tackling  its  problems  directly. 
The  principle  of  taissez  faire,  laissez  passer  has  never 
been  that  of  the  Russian  State,  which  is  for  ever  carry- 
ing on  various  undertakings,  exploiting,  as  a  private 
individual,  railways,  distilleries,  mines,  factories,  forests, 
etc.  I  believe  we  shall  nowhere  else  find  a  State 
so  greatly,  concerned  with  trade  and  industry. 

To  understand  how  it  has  come  to  assume  such  a 
function  we  must  go  back  to  its  first  great  ventures 
into  the  economic  sphere,  under  Peter  I,  not  forgetting 
that  it  then  found  the  soil  prepared.  For  we  know 
that  as  early  as  the  seventeenth  century  the  State  was 
adding  to  its  administrative  functions  the  exercise  of 
trade,  and  notably  that  it  carried  on  an  extensive  trade 
with  foreign  countries.  Thus  conditions  came  into  being 
which  were  propitious  to  the  reforms  of  Peter  the 
Great  and  to  that  economic  "  Europeanization  "  of 
Russia  which   he   so   resolutely  undertook. 


34  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

III 

But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  Peter  the  Great 
intended  to  "denationalize"  Russia,  or  that  he  was 
the  enemy  of  the  truly  Russian  elements  of  the  nation. 
On  the  contrary,  his  system  was  fully  national  in 
character,  and  one  of  the  authors  who  have  studied 
it  was  able  to  say  of  him  with  reason  that  Peter  the 
Great  was  merely  an  enlightened  nationalist.1 

Peter  I  was  a  representative  of  the  mercantile 
doctrine.  But  the  mercantile  doctrine  is  merely  an 
economic  nationalism.2  This  theory,  as  far  as  it  applied 
to  Russia,  was  expounded  by  Baron  von  Luberas  in 
a  scheme  which  he  proposed  to  Peter  : — 

'•'  To  set  the  general  economy  in  a  solid  and  stable 
order  it  is  extremely  necessary  to  give  this  structure 
a  suitable  life  or  soul.  This  last  consists  in  the  amount 
of  credit  which  your  Majesty  enjoys  abroad,"  As 
for  this  credit,  it  is  necessary  to  the  development  of 
trade  and  industry  in  the  interior  of  the  country  ;  for 
"  one  must  take  pains  to  improve  the  production  of 
one's  own  country  "  ;  must  no  longer  remain  dependent 
on  foreign  industry,  but  must  obtain  an  active  balance 
in  favour  of  Russia,  and  "  create  one's  own  manu- 
factures." 

Such  was  the  advice  of  Luberas. 3  And  such  was  the 
opinion  of  Peter  himself,  who  was  familiar  with  the 
mercantile  doctrine  not  only  through  the  theories  of 
Luberas  and  other  "  projectors,"  but  also  in  practice — 
in    the     Netherlands    and    other    European    countries 

1  See  the  work  already  cited  of  M.  Ischchanian,  p.  20. 

2  Mr.  H.  Higgs,  the  well-known  English  economist,  says  of  the 
"  mercantilists "  :  "  The  mercantilists  were  always  extremely  anxious 
to  solve  the  following  problem:  By  what  means  may  a  Government 
contribute  to  the  well-being  of  the  nation  ?  Nationalism,  State  inter- 
vention, and  particularism  constitute  the  essentials  of  their  economic 

policy." 

3  Cited  from  Milukov's  The  Economy  of  the  Russian  State  during  the 
First  Quarter  of  the  Tenth  Century  and  the  Reform  of  Peter  the  Great 
(Petersburg,  1892,  p.  528,  Russian  ed.). 


!\ 


s. 


THE   MATERIAL  BONDS  35 

through  which  he  had  travelled.  However,  he  could 
not  be  a  '■'  mercantilist  "  according  to  the  Dutch  or 
English  pattern.  In  the  Low  Countries  and  in  England 
industry  was  created  far  more  by  private  initiative  than 
by  the  public  authorities.  French  mercantilism — 
'  Colbertism  " — was  already  more  governmental.  In 
Russia  the  role  of  the  public  authorities  had  perforce 
to  be  greater  because  private  initiative  was  feeble, 
and  very  often  the  Russian  bourgeoisie  was  even  hostile 
to  the  introduction  of  new  methods  of  economic 
exploitation  and  to  the  '•*■  Europeanization  "  of  the 
national  methods  of  production.  Thus,  for  example, 
one  of  the  leading  Russian  publicists  and  economists  of 
the  time  of  Peter  I,  Ivan  Pososhkov,  advised  the  Tsar 
to  "  stop  all  the  chinks  "  through  which  Russia  placed 
herself  in  communication  with  the  West,  and  to  sup- 
press even  postal  communication.  Pososhkov  and  many 
others  were  partisans  of  a  conservative  and  retrograde 
economic  nationalism,  while  Peter  I  represented  an 
enlightened  and  progressive  nationalism.  And  as  the 
resisting  force  of  the  conservative  nationalists  was  in- 
sufficient, the  authorities  were  able  to  effect  changes 
in  the  domain  of  economics  which  to  us  appear  almost 
a  revolution  from  above." 


IV. 

(What  were  the  practical  results  of  the  "  Europeaniza- 
tion "  of  industry  under  Peter  I? 

The  figures  relating  to  the  Russian  industry  of  the 
period  are  by  no  means  negligible,  for  on  the  death 
of  the  Tsar  there  were  in  Russia  233  large  industrial 
establishments  belonging  to  the  State  and  to  private 
individuals,  the  mines  being  excepted.  We  may  even 
say  that  they  satisfied  immediate  requirements.  But 
if  we  consider  the  elements  and  possibilities  of  future 
evolution,  the  spectacle  is  less  brilliant. 

A  superior  economic  system  imposing  itself  upon  a 
country  whose  general  level  is  inferior  to  it  produces 
a  twofold  effect.     On  the  one  hand,  it  stimulates  the 


36  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

forces  of  production,  whose  means  it  tends  to  modernize 
and  improve.  But  at  the  same  time  it  exerts  a 
destructive  effect  :  it  disintegrates  and  dissolves  the 
forms  which  preceded  it,  and  which  are  no  longer 
adapted  to  the  new  requirements  which  it  has  evoked. 

This  is  precisely  what  happened  under  Peter  I .  While 
with  great  activity  a  new  equipment  was  elaborated 
and  a  new  technique  came  into  being,  the  representa- 
tives of  the  old  conceptions  of  life  and  labour  waged 
a  truly  desperate  campaign  against  all  M  innovations  " 
and  all  that  was  "  foreign." 

Great  material,  social,  and  moral  suffering  was  caused 
by  this  clash  between  the  old  economic  state  and  the 
European  form  of  exploitation  introduced  by  Peter  the 
Great.  These  sufferings  have  impressed  many  Russian 
historians  and  investigators  to  the  point  of  inspiring 
a  condemnation  of  the  entire  work  of  industrial  renova- 
tion accomplished  by  this  monarch. 

One  of  the  foremost  of  these  writers,  M.  Korsak, 
is  of  opinion  that  Peter's  whole  economic  policy  was 
simply  a  huge  mistake  :  that  far  from  founding  large 
establishments  in  the  European  manner  he  should  have 
applied  himself  to  organizing  the  small  national  crafts 
and  trades  and  the  small  local  industries  which  existed 
long  before  his  time.  "  Instead  of  turning  the  artisans 
into  industrial  workers,  it  would  have  been  far  better 
to  have  made  them  independent  industrial  master-crafts- 
men," and  "  instead  of  building  factories  on  account  of 
the  State  and  afterwards  placing  them  in  possession 
of  merchants  and  nobles,  it  would  have  been  better 
to  entrust  their  exploitation  to  the  communes,  villages, 
and  towns."  M.  Korsak,  whose  work  on  Some  Forms 
of  Industry  appeared  in  1861,  was  of  opinion  that 
'•'  the  new  form  of  industry  (established  by  Peter  I) 
was  in  absolute  contradiction  to  all  the  modes  and 
habits  of  Russian  life." 

But  it  is  to  be  noted,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
concentration  of  small  enterprises  and  the  communal 
exploitation  of  which  M.  Korsak  speaks  could  not  have 


THE   MATERIAL  BONDS  37 

been  realized  in  the  eighteenth  century,  for  even  in 
our  days  the  "  commercialization  "  of  industry 
encounters  many  difficulties  and  advances  very  slowly. 
Peter's  reign  was  a  period  of  wars  ;  and  the  Govern- 
ment was  too  much  taken  up  by  the  necessities  of 
external  conflict  to  exercise  any  choice  ;  it  merely 
borrowed  from  Europe  what  it  found  there. 

The  question,  then,  is  not  what  Peter  the  Great 
should  have   done,   but  what   he   was   able  to  do. 

On  the  other  hand,  was  the  new  form  of  production, 
as  M.  Korsak  states,  absolutely  contrary  to  the  modes 
and  habits  of  Russian  life?  In  this  connection  we 
must  remember  that  commerce  on  the  grand  scale,  as 
we  have  seen,  was  not  unknown  before  the  reign  of 
Peter,  so  that  industry  had  only  to  follow  the  example 
of  commerce.  We  may  admit,  however,  that  the  general 
economic  conditions  and  "  the  new  form  of  industry  " 
were  in  disagreement.  But  they  were  so  precisely 
because  the  one  was  superior  to  the  others,  as  being 
more  progressive. 

Fully  to  grasp  the  nature  of  this  contradiction  we 
must  consider  and  solve  a  special  problem  which  com- 
plicated the  process  of  "  Europeanizing  "  Russia — 
namely,   the   problem  of   labour. 

The  efforts  of  Peter  the  Great  to  develop  Russian 
industry  were  confronted  by  a  scarcity  of  "  hands." 
The  founders  of  the  first  factories  were  not  serf -owning 
nobles,  but  merchants  and  foreigners,  who  owned  no 
serfs.  The  Government,  in  granting  them  a  patent 
for  the  establishment  of  an  industrial  undertaking,  left 
them  at  liberty  to  recruit  Russian  or  foreign  workers 
"  by  paying  them  a  proper  wage."  The  principal  con- 
tingent of  these  "  free  "  workers  consisted  of  ex-serfs 
who  had  of  their  own  will  left  their  noble  masters. 
The  nobles,  greatly  vexed  by  this  defection,  demanded 
that  they  should  be  sent  back  from  the  factories  to 
their  villages.  But  Peter  I,  by  a  ukase  dated  17.22, 
forbade  the  surrender  of  these  peasants,  turned  artisans, 
to  their  lawful  masters. 


38  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

Reading  this  ukase,  one  would  naturally  suppose  that 
in  the  conflict  between  the  old  national  regime,  based 
on  serfdom  and  forced  labour,  and  the  new  industrial 
exploitation,  which  enjoyed  the  co-operation  of  free 
labour,  Peter  the  Great  was  in  favour  of  the  second, 
and  that  he  would  thus  have  arrived  at  the  idea  of 
abolishing  serfdom.  Nothing  of  the  kind  !  In  the 
preceding  year  (1721)  Peter,  by  another  ukase,  had 
authorized  "  merchant  folk  '  owning  factories  to  buy 
peasants  on  condition  that  they  bought  them  by  the 
whole  village,  and  that  each  village  was  attached  not 
to  the  person  of  the  manufacturer,  but  to  the  industrial 
undertaking  itself. 

So,  in  their  struggle  against  innovation,  the  "  old 
habits,"  unhappily,  won  the  day  ;  and  instead  of  hasten- 
ing the  disappearance  of  serfdom,  as  it  did  in  Europe, 
the  new  industry,  as  soon  as  it  made  its  appearance 
in  Russia,  adapted  itself  to  its  environment,  and  took 
as  its  basis  the  same  forced  labour  of  the  serfs  which 
was  the  basis  of  agriculture. 

More  than  a  century  elapsed  before  a  true 
"  Europeanization "  of  industrial  production  became 
possible  in  Russia  by  means  of  the  liberation  of  the 
serfs. 


CHAPTER   IVi 

I.  Foreign  influences  under  the  successors  of  Peter  the  Great— The 
conflict  between  Western  tendencies  and  the  Russian  system  of 
government— Catherine  II— The  ukase  of  1763.  II.  European 
colonists  in  the  Russian  countryside — Why  is  the  Russian  moujik 
poor  and  the  immigrant  farmer  rich  ?  III.  The  true  method  of 
"  Europeanizing  "  the  economic  system  of  Russia. 


The  immediate  successors  of  Peter  the  Great  did  not 
continue  his  economic  policy.  We  may  even  say  that 
they  followed  a  totally  contrary  line  of  conduct.  Instead 
of  developing  the  forces  of  the  country  they  occupied 
themselves  only  with  their  own  .  .  .  consumption. 
They  wasted  far  more  than  they  created.  The  general 
character  of  such  European  influences  as  they  did  not 
avoid  underwent  a  total  change.  Peter  I  summoned 
to  Russia  able  specialists  in  industry,  trade,  the  sciences, 
and  the  military  art — engineers,  officers,  and  merchants  ; 
his  successors  fell  into  the  hands  of  adventurers.1  The 
Tsars,  and  above  all  the  Tsarinas  (incapable  of  resist- 
ing the  charms  of  foreign  beauty),  distributed  to  their 
favourites  the  property  of  the  State,  large  sums  of 
money  taken  from  the  Treasury,  lands,  and  entire 
villages  peopled  with  serfs. 

What  was  even  more  serious  was  that  without  having 
borrowed  from  Peter  the  Great  one  single  positive 
and  fruitful  idea,  his  immediate  successors  repeated 
and  revived  his  errors. 

1  M.  Emile  Haumant  mentions  this  fact  in  his  remarkable  work  on 
French  Culture  in  Russia,  stating  that  the  wave  of  French  immigration 
into  Russia  became  "more  turbid"  after  the  reign  of  Peter  I.  It  was 
the  same  with  the  immigration  from  other  European  countries. 

39 


40  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

The  ukase  of  1721,  which  confirmed  the  principle 
of  serfdom,  was  doubtless  an  error  in  that  it  worsened 
the  situation  of  the  labouring  masses  ;  but  at  least  it 
recognized  an  equality  of  rights  between  the  industrial 
capitalists  and  the  nobles,  and  did  not  reserve  the 
labour  of  the  serfs  exclusively  for  those  who  had  until 
then  been  their  masters.  Under  Peter's  successors  the 
nobles  had  their  revenge.  They  applied  themselves  to 
depriving  the  merchants  and  manufacturers  of  the  right 
of  owning  serfs,  so  that  they  could  thenceforth 
monopolize   industry   without    risk  of   competition. 

Under  the  pressure  of  their  demands  a  law  was 
passed  in  1762  forbidding  persons  not  belonging  to 
the  nobility  to  purchase  serfs  and  to  employ  them  in 
factories  and  workshops.  This  law  was  only  the  logical 
climax  of  a  series  of  measures  whose  aim  was  to  re- 
establish the  supremacy  of  the  nobility  in  the  indus- 
trial domain,  and  was  thus  entirely  opposed  to  the 
tendency  then  prevailing  in  Europe,  where  the  bourgeois 
system  was  advancing  by  rapid  strides.  This  "  ennoble- 
ment "  of  Russian  industry  had  disastrous  results,  as 
I    have   already   explained   elsewhere. 

"  Thanks  to  the  law  of  1762  and  the  small  number 
of  free  workers,  the  nobles  were  not  slow  to 
monopolize  all  the  principal  branches  of  industry. 
»  .  .  But  if  the  serfs  were  bad  industrial  workmen, 
the  nobles  themselves  were  deplorable  organizers. 
Accustomed  to  live  by  gratuitous  labour — that  of  their 
serfs — the  nobles  possessed  neither  the  energy  nor  the 
initiative  essential  in  a  good  manufacturer.  .  .  . 
Having  no  competition  to  fear,  they  had  nothing  to 
stimulate  them  to  improve  the  technique  of  their  pro- 
duction." ' 

The  advent  of  Catherine  II  seemed  bound  to  cause 
a  revival  of  the  economic  policy  and  a  return  to  the 
positive  conceptions  of  Peter  the  Great.  Like  him, 
Catherine  II  resorted  to  the  European  element  as  to 
a  ferment. 

1  Modern  Russia,  2nd  ed.,  p.  81. 


THE   MATERIAL  BONDS  41 

In  the  second  year  of  her  reign  (on  the  22nd  of  July 
1763)  she  published  a  ukase  inviting  foreigners  to  enter 
Russia,  promising  them  ( 1 )  entire  liberty  of  religious 
conscience  and  subventions  for  the  institution  of  their 
various  cults  ;  (2)  perpetual  exemption  from  obligatory 
military  service  ;  (3)  exemption  from  taxation  during  a 
certain  period  •  (4)  communal  autonomy  in  respect  of 
matters  of  administration  and  police,  with  the  right  to 
elect  their  own  administrators,  and  the  creation  of  a 
special  superior  body  having  the  general  direction  of 
the  relations  between  the  immigrants  and  the  State  j 
(5)  a  special  jurisdiction  for  matters  as  between  one 
immigrant  and  another. 

These  provisions  attracted  to  Russia  a  multitude  of 
Europeans,  who  considerably  reinforced  the  foreign 
coefficient  in  the  Russian  economy.  At  the  end  of 
Catherine's  reign,  for  example,  out  of  1 63  factories  and 
workshops  then  existing  in  Petersburg  35,  or  21*47  P^r 
cent.,  belonged  to  foreigners,  7  to  Englishmen,  7  ta 
Frenchmen,  5  to  Germans,  3  to  Bulgarians,  2  to  Italians, 
1  to  a  Swede,  and  10  to  persons  of  unknown  origin — 
probably,  for  the  most  part,  to  Germans.  In  Moscow, 
too,  a  European  colony  established  itself,  consisting 
principally  of  Germans^ 

II 

But  the  most  important  result  of  the  ukase  of  1763 
was  the  appearance  of  immigrants  in  the  agricultural 
regions . 

From  1764  to  1776  a  great  influx  of  Rheinlanders 
and  Westphalians  entered  Russia,  to  found  villages  on 
the  banks  of  the  Volga  (in  the  Governments  of  Saratov 
and  Samara),  where  they  occupied  an  expanse  of  terri- 
tory 100  versts  in  length.  In  1783  another  wave  of 
Europeans  penetrated  the  south  of  Russia  (in  the 
Government  of  Yekaterinoslav),  on  the  banks  of  the 
Dnieper.  It  consisted  of  Mennonites  (a  Protestant 
sect),  half  Dutch  and  half  German  in  origin,  who 
established  agricultural  colonies. 


42  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

The  immigration  of  European  agriculturists  continued 
under  Alexander  I  and  Nicolas  I.  In  1803  a  vigorous 
group  of  Mennonite  families  set  foot  in  one  of  the 
Caucasian  regions.  It  was  followed  by  other  colonists, 
who  at  first  were  exclusively  German,  and  then  Czech 
and  Bulgar,  who  established  themselves  in  South- 
western Russia. 

A  few  figures  will  show  how  rapidly  Southern  Russia 
was  peopled  with  foreign  agriculturists. 

In  1775  there  were  in  Russia  only  23,000  individual 
colonists.  In  1877,  a  century  later,  there  were  86,000 
families,  and  in  1905  there  were,  158,500.  In  1877 
they  owned  2,894,500  desiatins  of  land;  in  1905 
3,190,000    desiatins.'1 

The  greater  part  of  the  agricultural  immigrants  is 
concentrated  in  the  Governments  of  Kherson  (61,000 
families),  Bessarabia  (27,500),  Samara  (21,000), 
Saratov  (19,000),  Yekaterinoslav  (17,000),  and  the 
Crimea    (11,500). 

Here  we  are  speaking  only  of  agriculturists  who  have 
become  Russian  subjects .  There  are  in  addition  to  these 
a  certain  number  of  landed  proprietors  who  are  foreign 
subjects.  In  1905  the  number  of  estates  belonging  to 
them  was  868,  and  they  possessed  350,000  desiatins  of 
land.  Most  of  them  are  large  landowners  who  have 
been  able  to  acquire  property  in  Russia  by,  means  of 
their  personal  connections. 

As  for  the  peasant  colonists,  we  must  admit,  and  all 
writers  on  the  subject  will  confirm  the  fact,  that  their 
economic  situation  is  far  superior  tQ  that  of  the  Russian 
peasants.  For  certain  economists  this  phenomenon  is 
due  to  the  "  individualism  "  prevailing  among  the  immi- 
grants, whereas  the  Russian  peasants  have  remained 
attached  to  the  communism  of  the  mir.  This  theory 
must  even,  to  a  certain  point,  have  inspired  the  famous 
agrarian  reform'  of  the  Minister  Stolypin   (the  ukase  of 

1  I  cite  these  figures  from  the  results  of  the  statistical  inquiry  into 
landed  property  in  Russia  in  1905  (published  by  the  Ministry  of  the 
Interior,  Petersburg,  1907,  pp.  xxiv-xxvii). 


THE  MATERIAL  BONDS  43 

9/22  November  1906),  whose  central  principle  was 
the  dissolution  of  the  agricultural  commune  and  the 
substitution  of  individual  exploitation. 

I  am  not  a  great  admirer  of  the  Russian  mir,  but  I 
must,  however,  say  that  the  well-being  of  the  immi- 
grants and  the  poverty  of  the  sons  of  the  soil  are  not 
imputable  to  the  system  of  property,  but  to  the  difference 
of  general  conditions  to  which  they  are  severally  subject. 
If  the  Russian  Government,  which  granted  privileges  to 
the  foreign  immigrants,  had  treated  the  Russian  peasants 
in  the  same  manner,  if  it  had  not  crushed  them  by 
taxation,  had  exempted  them  from  military  service, 
and  had  left  them  free  to  administer  their  own  affairs, 
instead  of  keeping  them  under  the  terrible  yoke 
of  serfdom,  we  may  be  sure  that  they  would  have 
given  equal  proof  of  their  capacity  for  labour  and 
organization . 

On  the  other  hand,  we  should  remark  that  the  lands 
of  the  colonists  are  far  more  extensive  than  those  of  the 
Russian  moujiks.  According  to  the  official  inquiry  of 
1905,  a  dvor  (court  or  household)  of  colonists  com- 
prises an  average  of  20-2  desiatins,  while  a  dvor  of 
Russian  moujiks  comprised  only  6  to  9  desiatins  ;  and 
millions  of  dvors  of  Russian  moujiks  average  only  3  to 
4  desiatins. 

This  lack  of  land  is  the  greatest  obstacle  to  the 
development  of  rural  exploitation  in  Russia.  In 
1908  the  zemstva  of  Samara  made  a  comparative 
statistical  inquiry  into  the  state  of  agriculture  within 
its  government.  It  admits  that  a  family  of  Men- 
nonite  colonists  possesses  an  average  of  2>3k  desia- 
tins, while  a  Russian  peasant  family  possesses  only 
7  desiatins.  The  authors  of  this  inquiry,  who  are 
greatly  in  favour  of  individual  exploitation,  nevertheless 
remark  :— 

II  Only  a  given  quantity  of  land  can  maintain  the  life 
of  a  Mennonite  family  at  the  level  of  affluence  to  which 
it  is  accustomed.  With  the  decrease  of  territorial 
property  begin  those  troubles  which  result  in  diminished 


44  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

exploitation   and,   finally,   in   the   loss    of  the   property 
itself."  « 

The  same  conclusions  result  from  the  facts  to  be 
observed  in  other  parts  of  Russia:  for  example,  in  the 
Government  of  Kiev,  where  there  are  Czech  and  German 
agricultural  colonies.  Their  prosperity  results  from  the 
fact  that  their  properties  are  much  more  extensive  than 
those  of  the  moujiks,  and  are  cultivated  under  different 
legal  and  social  conditions.2 

Ill 

The  special  and  favourable  treatment  of  foreign 
colonists  proves  that  Catherine  II  and  her  successors 
held  the  European  element  in  great  esteem,  but  had 
little  understanding  of  the  process  of  "  Europeanizing  " 
their  State.  The  transformation  which  they  were  seek- 
ing could  not  be  obtained  by  creating  oases  of  European 
culture  in  the  desert  of  general  poverty.  What  was 
needed  was  to  raise  the  native  population  by  offering  it 
the  possibility  of  living  and  working  as  in  Europe. 
Their  false  conception  diminished  the  effects  expected 
from  Western  immigration.  And  we  are  always  struck 
by  the  contrast  between  the  European  colonies  and  the 
surrounding  Russian  countryside. 

Any  progress  in  general  politics,  on  the  contrary,  has 
made  way  for  a  fresh  economic  impulse,  and  has  added 
to  the  real  Europeanization  of  Russia.  For  example, 
the  great  events  of  the  period  1860-70 — the  abolition 
of  serfdom,  the  reform  of  the  administration,  etc. — gave 
it  the  strongest  impulse.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  three- 
fourths  of  the  industrial  undertakings  to-day  existing 
have  been  born  since  then. 

However,  despite  all  errors  of  domestic  policy,  in- 
creasingly powerful  ties  were  binding  Russia  to  Europe, 

1  Individual  Exploitations  in  the  Government  of  Samara,  vol.  i.  p.  177 
(Samara,  1909). 

3  See  M.  A.  Yarochevitch,  Essay  on  the  Individual  Exploitations  in 
the  Government  of  Kiev  (extracted  from  the  Inquiry  held  by  the 
Zemstvo  of  Kiev).    Kiev,  191 1. 


THE  MATERIAL  BONDS  45 

making  her  inseparable  from  the  international  economic 
organism.  And  all  through  the  nineteenth  century  we 
may  observe  an  increasingly,  close  correlation  between 
the  evolution  of  Russia  and  that  of  the  countries  with 
which  she  maintained  relations. 

To  limit  ourselves  to  a  single  example,  let  us  take  the 
textile  industry,  whose  development  was  continuous 
throughout  the  nineteenth  century,  even  at  times  when 
depression  and  even  stagnation  prevailed  in  other 
departments    of    production. 

In  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  whole 
business  of  weaving  cotton  cloths  was  monopolized  in 
Russia  by  two  Englishmen— Chamberlain  and  Cosens — 
who  had  a  large  establishment  in  Petersburg.  Since 
then  relations  between  the  Russian  textile  industry  and 
that  of  England  have  been  unbroken,  surviving  the 
suppression  of  the  privilege  granted  to  the  two  English- 
men. During  the  whole  of  the  nineteenth  century  a 
remarkable  parallelism  was  observable  between  the  fluc- 
tuations of  Russian  and  English  production.  All  crises 
occurring  in  the  latter  were  followed  by  crises  in  the 
former  ;  and  any  recovery  or  revival  was  communi- 
cated from  the  English  to  the  Russian  industry,  notwith- 
standing Russian  protectionism  and  the  very  high  import 
duties  which  it  placed  on  woven  stuffs. 

Each  crisis  in  the  textile  industry  (for  example,  that 
of  1820,  1837,  1840,  etc.)  lowered  the  price  of  thread 
and  yarns  in  England,  and  these  were  articles  imported 
into  Russia.  A  comparison  of  figures  proves  the  exist- 
ence in  Russia  of  the  same  state  of  affairs  at  the  same 
periods.  The  fall  of  prices,  in  its  turn,  provoked  in 
England  changes  of  technical  methods,  the  use  of  im- 
proved equipment,  and  the  more  extensive  use  of 
machinery,  and  we  find  the  same  process  going  forward 
at  the  same  time  in  Russia.  *'  Thus,"  says  Professor 
Toughan-Baranovsky,  in  commenting  upon  these  facts, 
"  the  evolution  of  our  textile  factory  is  explained,  above 
all,  by  the  general  international  conditions  of  industrial 
evolution.     Russia  has  been  caught  in  the  wheels  of  the 


46  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

capitalistic  development  of  England,  and  has  profited 
by  the  technical1  successes  of  the  latter."  * 

During  the  second  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  the 
tendency  indicated  by  the  history  of  the  textile  industry 
became  generalized,  and  affected  other  important 
branches  of  Russian  production.  The  alternations  pf 
progress  and  arrest  in  the  capitalistic  economy  were 
almost  simultaneous  in  Russia,  in  Europe,  and  in  the 
rest  of  the  world. 

vWe  might  point  to  other  analogies  and  correlations 
of  the  same  kind  between  Modern  Russia  and  Europe. 
Some  economists  (notably  J.  Hobson  in  Jiis  Evolution 
of  Modern  Capitalism)  declare  that  all  periods  of  inten- 
sive railway  construction  in  England,  on  the  Continent, 
and  in  the  United  States  were  succeeded  by  moments 
of  economic  depression  and  stagnation.  The  same  phe- 
nomenon appeared  in  Russia  after  the  attacks  of  "  rail- 
way fever  "  in  the  seventh  and  ninth  decades  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  when  periods  of  prosperity  and 
speculation  were  terminated  by  "  smashes  "  ;  by  the 
ruin  and  disappearance  of  dozens  of  industrial 
enterprises . 

In  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  industrial  andl 
capitalistic  economy  of  Russia  lives  the  same  life  as 
that  of  Europe. 

1  M.  Toughan-Baranovsky,   The  Russian  Factory  in   the  Past  and 
Present,  vol.  i.  p.  65  (Petersburg,  1898). 


CHAPTER    V 

I.  European  influence  and  the  national  economy  of  the  Russia  of 
to-day — The  increase  of  imports  and  exports — The  general  char- 
acter of  Russia's  foreign  trade.  II.  Human  immigration  from 
Europe  into  Russia — Its  composition.  III.  The  penetration  of 
European  capital  into  Russia.  IV.  Its  forms  and  its  dimensions — 
State  loans  and  private  industry — National  capital  and  foreign 
capital  in  Russia.  V.  The  distribution  of  foreign  capital  among 
the  various  branches  of  industry.  VI.  German  capitalism  and  its 
influence  on  the  Russian  economy. 

I 

Having  glanced  at  the  main  outlines  of  the  history  of 
the  economic  relations  between  Russia  and  Western 
Europe,  let  us  now  examine,  in  a  general  manner,  the 
penetration  of  the  European  element  into  the  national 
economy  of  Russia. 

The  total  value  of  the  Russian  exports  and  imports 
amounted,  on  the  average,  during  the  first  quarter  of 
the  nineteenth  century  to  112,300,000  roubles  ;  from 
1825  to  1849  ^  was  221,200,000;  from  1849  to 
1874,  525,000,000  ;  and  from  1875  to  1900, 
1,092,000,000.  In  other  words,  the  commercial  move- 
ment of  Russia  upon  the  international  market  increased, 
in  a  hundred  years,  by  972  per  cent.  ;  that  is,  it  became 
nearly  ten  times  what  it  was.  And  thus  Russia's 
isolation  with  regard  to  the  other  Powers  became  ten 
times  less*  while  her  ties  with  the  other  nations  became 
ten  times  more  solid  and  complete.1 

At  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century  the  role  and 
the  importance  of  Russia  in  the  exchanges  of  the  world 

1  See  my  Modern  Russia,  T.  Fisher  Unwin,  1914,  p.  97. 

47 


48  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

continued  to  increase.  During  the  first  five  years  of  this 
century  alone  the  total  of  her  foreign  trade  increased 
by  one-third.  In  1905  it  reached  the  sum  of 
1,702,000,000  roubles  ;  in  1910ft:  amounted  to 
2,533,000,000  roubles  ;  while  in  191 3  it  amounted 
to   2,690,000,000. l 

These  figures  are  those  of  the  international  trade  of 
Russia,  coming  from  all  sources  and  going  to  all  desti- 
nations. But  most  of  it  passes  by  way  of  her  European 
frontiers.  For  the  five  years  between  1907  and  191 1 
inclusive,  for  example,  the  goods  crossing  these  fron- 
tiers represented  an  annual  average  of  2,083,700,000 
roubles,  while  the  Asiatic  frontiers  saw  the  entrance  or 
exit  of  only  202,700,000  roubles'  worth  of  trade,  on 
less  than  one-tenth  of  the  former  sum. 

There  is  no  exaggeration  in  declaring  that  if,  as 
regards  political  forms,  Russia  is  still  far  from  being 
truly  Europeanized,  at  least  her  economic  ties  and 
aspirations  bind  her  far  more  closely  to  Europe  than 
to  Asia. 

What  is  the  merchandise  which  Russia  obtains  from 
Europe? 

Alimentary  products  form  the  smallest  part  of  the 
Russian  impprts  of  European  origin,  which  is  natural 
in  the  case  of  an  agricultural  country.  In  1902  their 
value  amounted  to  82,300,000  roubles  ;  in  ,1912  it 
was  140,200,000  ;  so  in  ten  years  the  increase  was 
one  of  70  per  cent.  The  imports  of  "manu- 
factured articles  " — industrial  products — were  valued  at 
150,300,000  roubles  in  1902  and  375,700,000  in 
191 2  ;  this  was  an  increase  of  150  per  cent.  But 
the  greater  portion  of  the  imports  consist  of  "  semi- 
manufactured articles  "  and  the  raw  materials  of  indus- 
tries. Of  these  295,000,000  roubles'  worth  were  im- 
ported in  1902,  and  in  191 2  this  figure  had  risen  to 
518,000,000;  an  increase  of  75  per  cent,  for  the 
decade. 

1  See  the  Report  of  the  Minister  of  Finances  on  the  Budget  Pro- 
posals of  1914,  Part  II,  p.  20  (Petersburg,  1913). 


THE   MATERIAL  BONDS  49 

These  figures,  taken  from  the  official  Report  of  the 
Minister  of  Finances  on  the  Budget  of  1914,  enable  me 
to  say  that  unreservedly  to  attribute  all  the  advantages 
of  the  commercial  relations  between  Russia  and  Europe 
to  Europe,  and  all  the  disadvantages  to  Russia,  would 
be  to  fall  into   hyperbole. 

The  better  to  show  that  the  introduction  of  foreign 
industrial  goods  to  the  Russian  market  is  of  secondary 
importance,    I    will    cite    two  examples  : — 

In  191 2  there  were  imported  into  Russia  2,150,000 
poods  of  wool,  while  the  home  production  of  wool 
was  13,500,000  poods  ;  that  is,  the  wool  of  foreign 
origin  formed  only  14  per  cent,  of  the  total  Russian 
consumption  (if  we  regard  it  as  equal  to  the  sum 
of  the  home  production  plus  the  amount  imported). 
In  the  same  year,  191 2,  306,000,000  poods  of  coal 
were  imported,  into  Russia,  while  the  country  produced 
1,887,000,000  poods,  or  87  per  cent,  of  the  total  con- 
sumption. 

The  sole  class  of  products  whose  importation  really 
plays  an  enormous  part  in  Russia,  and  in  respect  of 
which  the  country  remains  dependent  upon  the  outer 
world,  is  machinery,  of  which  in  191 2  there  was  im- 
ported 146,000,000  roubles'  worth,  while  in  1902  this 
figure  was  only  51,000,000.  But  this  rapid  increase 
of  the  demand  is  in  itself  a  fresh  proof  of  the  develop- 
ment of  national  industry,  and  the  promptitude  with 
which  its  technical  equipment   is  being   improved. 


The  immediate  influence  of  the  Europe  of  to-day  is 
not  confined,  to  the  introduction  of  merchandise  ;  it 
manifests  itself  under  two  additional  forms  ;  the  export, 
into  Russia,  of  men  and  of  capital. 

To  realize  the  character  and  the  extent  of  human 
immigration  we  must  repair  to  the  results  of  the  census 
of  the  population  of  the  Russian  Empire — the  only  one, 
alas  ! — which  was  taken  in    1897.     There  we  find  that 

4 


50  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

Russia  contained  605,500  foreign  subjects,  which  makes 
$  per  cent,  of  the  total  population. 

Some  writers  believe  the  proportion  of  foreign  subjects 
in  Russia  to  be  even  less,  and  give  the  comparative 
figures  of  immigration  relating  to  other  European 
countries.  In  Switzerland  the  number  of  foreigners 
per  1,000  inhabitants  is  7J  ;  in  France,  30  ;  in 
Belgium,  24  ;  in  Holland,  10  ;  in  Germany,  9  ;  in 
England,  8  ;  in  Austria-Hungary,  5  ;  in  Scotland,  4  ; 
in  the  Scandinavian  countries,  3  ;  in  Ireland,  3  ;  in 
Italy,  2  ;    and  in  Russia,   1 . 

Even  in  those  parts  of  Russia  which  most  attract 
him,  the  foreigner  is  not  very  numerous  ;  in  the  Cau- 
casus he  forms  1*69  per  cent,  of  the  total  population  ; 
in  Poland,  1*15  per  cent.  ;  in  Siberia,  108  per  cent.  ; 
in  Central  Russia,  0*27  per  cent.,  etc. 

According  to  race,  the  foreign  subjects  in  Russia 
were  distributed  thus  : — 

Germans,  158,000;  Austro-Hungarians,  121,500; 
Turks,  121,000;  Persians,  74,000;  Chinese,  47,500; 
Koreans,  13,000;  Greeks,  12,500;  French,  9,500; 
Bokharans,  8,000  ;  English,  7,500  ;  Swiss,  6,000  ; 
Italians,  5,000  ;  Roumanians,  4,000  ;  and  others, 
18,000. 

There  is  a  great  difference  between  the  immigrants 
of  Asiatic  and  those  of  European  origin,  as  regards 
their  economic  functions.  M.  Ischchanian  defines  it  as 
follows  : — 

"  .The  foreigners  entering  Russia  from  the  West  form, 
in  the  urban  professions  and  especially  in  industry, 
trade,  and  transport — the  camp  of  the  contractors, 
the  directing  and  administrative  staff  of  the  upper 
strata  of  the  technical  and  commercial  hierarchy,  the 
foremen,  and,  to  a  less  extent,  the  skilled  artisans  (this 
almost  exclusively  in  Russian  Poland).  The  foreigners 
of  Asiatic  origin,  on  the  other  hand,  go  to  form,  as  a 
rule,  the  middle  and  inferior  strata  in  such  callings  as 
that  of  the  small  trader,  the  commercial  traveller,  the 
manual  worker,  and  above  all  the  great  mass  of  those 


THE   MATERIAL   BONDS  51 

who  are  known  by  the  specific  term  of  tshernorabotchtt 
(that  is  to  say  labourers,  unskilled  workmen)."  r 

iWe  may  say,  then,  that  Russia  lies  midway  between 
Europe  and  Asia,  economically  as  well  as  geographi- 
cally. Of  the  Asiatics  she  already  asks  no  more  than 
simple  manual  labour  ;  for  Europeans,  Russia  is  a  field 
for  the  employment  of  their  capital  and  their  intellectual 
faculties. 

Of  the  605,000  foreigners  residing  in  Russia  in  1897, 
244,000  were  women.  But,  as  women,  economically 
speaking,  are  for  the  most  part  a  passive  element, 
enjoying  no  independence,  we  need  hardly  consider  them 
in  our  argument,  but  only  the  men,  who  number 
361,500. 

Forty-one  per  cent,  of  the  foreigners  residing  in 
Russia  in  1897  were  living  in  towns  ;  59  per  cent,  in 
the  country.  Now,  of  the  total  population  of  the  Empire 
the  inhabitants  of  the  towns,  in  1897,  formed  only  25 
per  cent.  It  is  obvious  that  in  Russia  the  foreigner 
furnishes  a  far  larger  proportion  of  urban  inhabitants 
than  the  native  population.  But  an  even  more  interest- 
ing fact  is  that  30  per  cent,  of  all  the  immigrants  are 
gathered  together  in  the  four  great  cities  :  Petrograd, 
Moscow,  Odessa,  and  Warsaw. 

However,  all  the  foreign  nationalities  represented  in 
the  Empire  have  not  an  equal  predilection  for  urban 
life  :  the  Germans,  the  Czechs,  and  the  Bulgars  prefer 
to  settle  outside  the  towns.  Of  the  Austro-Hungarian 
subjects  J  J  per  cent,  live  in  the  country,  as  do  58  per 
cent,  of  the  Germans  and  57  per  cent,  of  the  Bulgars. 
This  fact  is  due  to  the  numerous  German,  Czech,  and 
Bulgarian  colonies  in  the  south  of  Russia  and  on  the 
banks  of  the  Volga.  More  than  three-fourths  of  the 
French  in  Russia,  on  the  other  hand  (82  per  cent.),  are 
town-dwellers,  and  80  per  cent,  of  the  English,  60  per 
cent,  of  the  Belgians,  and  78  per  cent,  of  the  Italians. 

As   for    their   professions,    the   French    and    English 

1  This  word  is  made  up  of  two  words  :  tsherny  —  black,  and  raboia 
=  labour. 


52  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

are  mostly  engaged  in  trade  and  industry  j  of  ioo 
"  active  "  Frenchmen,  44  are  engaged  in  industry  }  2d 
in  trade  and  transport  ;  28  are  servants,  while  5  are 
farmers  and  3  are  engaged  in  other  callings.  The 
English  furnish  48  technical  or  industrial  experts  per 
100  ;  28  are  engaged  in  trade,  28  are  servants,  etc., 
while  only  1  per  cent,  are  farmers.  Of  the  German 
subjects  the  farmers  form  a  much  greater  proportion — 
22  per  cent.  ;  while  32  per  cent,  are  engaged  in  industry 
and  1 1  per  cent,  in  trade. 

The  proportion  of  those  engaged  in  trade  and  industry 
is  relatively  much  larger  among  the  foreigners  than 
among  the  native  inhabitants,  the  same  census  giving 
12  per  cent,  as  the  proportion  of  the  latter  engaged  in 
industry,  while  5|  per  cent,  are  engaged  in  trade  and 
70  per  cent,  in  agriculture. 

Ill  ! 

But  it  is  by  the  penetration  of  capital  that  Europe 
exerts  the  most  powerful  influence  in  Russia,  for  it  is 
through  the  foreigner's  money  and  hi,s  novel  forms  of 
capitalistic  exploitation  that  the  old  state  of  things  is 
undergoing  the  most  profound  upheaval. 

European  capital  enters  Russia  in  three  distinct  ways  : 
through  the  creation  in  Russia  of  industrial  'under- 
takings by  Europeans,  whether  by  private  persons  or 
companies  ;  through  the  participation  of  European 
capital  in  undertakings  organized  by  the  Russians, 
whether  singly  or  in  association  ;  and  through  loans 
raised  by  Russian  municipalities,  or  the  State,  in 
European  markets  ;  the  municipal  loans  being  devoted, 
as  a  rule,  to  various  public  works  in  the  cities  (tram- 
ways, waterworks,  etc.)  ;  of  the  latter  (that  is,  the 
State  loans),  only  a  portion  profits  private  industry, 
through  the  medium  of  official  contracts,  payment  of 
which  is  assured  by  these  loans  ;  the  greater  portion 
goes  to  defray  the  costs  of  administration. 

It  is  not  easy  to  determine  the  total  sum  of  the 
European  capital  engaged  in  industry  and  the  Russian 


THE  MATERIAL   BONDS  53 

loans.  M.  Ischchanian  claims  that  at  the  beginning 
of  the  twentieth  century  it  was  7,145,600,000  roubles, 
of  which  4,400,000,000  was  French,  1,920,000,000 
German,  372,000,000  English,  and  253,000,000 
Belgian,  while  200,000,000  came  from  other  European 
countries.  But  M.  Ischchanian's  calculations  are  very- 
inexact  ;  in  reality  the  European  interests  in  Russia 
are  considerably  greater. 

Thus,  according  to  the  data  given  in  191 2  by  the 
French  review,  Le  Correspondant,  France  alone  had 
1 7,  milliards  of  francs  invested  in  Russia,  or 
£680,000,000. l  M.  A.  Neymarck  asserts  that  Eng- 
land, by  1907,  had  £180,000,000  invested  in  Russia, 
£80,000,000  of  this  being  in  State  loans.  Of  the 
680,000,000  sterling  owed  to  France,  £424,400,000 
has  been  absorbed  by  external  State  loans,  and 
£53,600,000  by  internal  loans  ;  £16,000,000  by  the 
loans  issued  by  the  various  governments  and  muni- 
cipalities, and  £190,000,000  by  industrial  under- 
takings.2 

In  this  connection  a  Russian  economist  makes  the 
very  justifiable  remark  that  "  the  economic  dependence 
of  Russia  in  respect  of  foreign  countries  is  principally 
manifested  by  the  indebtedness  of  the  State,"  and  that 
•'  in  comparison,  the  sums  loaned  to  Russian  trade  and 
industry   appear    insignificant."  3 

►While  readily  admitting  the  justice  of  the  comparison, 
we  must,  however,  admit  that  the  absolute  role  of  Euro- 
pean capital  in  Russian  industry  is  very  considerable. 
And  what  is  even  more  important  is  that  of  late  it  has 
been  rapidly  increasing.  Before  1890  there  were  only 
16  shareholders'  companies  operating  in  Russia  with 
funds  of  foreign  origin.     Between   1 89 1   and    1900  no 

1  In  1914,  a  few  months  before  the  war,  Russia  had  arranged  for 
a  new  State  loan  in  Paris,  of  the  sum  of  £100,000,000,  the  first 
instalment  of  which  (£20,000,000)  was  issued  the  same  year. 

*  Le  Correspondant,  December  25,  1913,  p.  1050. 

»  A.  Finn-Yenotaevsky,  Sovremennoye  Khoziaistvo  Rossii  (The  Modern 
Economy  of  Russia),  Petersburg,  1911,  p.  481. 


54  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

less  than  2 1  5  were  promoted  ;  between  1 900  and  1 9 1  o, 
160  more;  and  82  between  191 1  and  1913-  In  tnis 
last  period  774  companies  were  founded  with  Russian 
capital.  Thus  one-fifth  of  the  new  undertakings  origi- 
nating in  a  term  of  three  years  were  the  work  of 
foreigners.  In  reality  the  latter  have  contributed  even 
more  considerably  to  the  development  of  Russian 
industry  ;  for  the  average  share-capital  of  the  foreign 
companies  was  1,736,000  roubles  per  company,  while 
the  average  share-capital  per  Russian  company,  was- 
1,220,000  roubles. 

In  order  correctly  to  appreciate  the  role  of  foreign 
capital  in  Russian  industry  we  must  compare  it  not 
with  the  external  indebtedness  of  the  State,  but  rather 
with  the  national  revenue  and  the  national  capital. 

Here  is  an  example  : — 

In  191  o  the  annual  revenue  of  all  the  industrial 
and  commercial  undertakings  in  Russia  (counting  only 
those  whose  income  was  over  1,000  roubles)  was 
856,000,000  roubles.  The  total  of  the  foreign  capital 
invested  in  authorized  shareholders'  companies  in  the 
year  191 1  was  80,000,000  roubles.  Supposing  that 
the  Russian  capitalists  were  in  a  position  to  devote 
even  50  per  cent,  of  their  revenue  to  the  creation  of  fresh 
undertakings,  we  see  that  they  could  invest  some 
400,000,000  roubles,  that  is,  only  five  times  the  foreign 
capital  invested  in  the  same  year. 

IV 

By  the  figures  already  cited  the  reader  will  have 
seen  that  Europe  exerts,  on  the  Russia  of  to-day,  a 
considerable  economic  influence  ;  but  it  is  not  true  that 
Russia  is  completely  dependent  upon  Europe.  The 
Russian  Empire  is  no  longer  economically  isolated, 
though  it  has  not  lost  its  autonomy. 

However,  we  must  not  overlook  certain  specific  traits 
of  European  participation  in  Russian  affairs. 

In  the  first  place,  we  must  note  that  relatively  speak- 
ing the   foreign   industrial  undertakings  in   Russia  are 


THE  MATERIAL  BONDS  55 

more  vigorous  than  the  Russian.  For  example,  the 
capital  of  the  shareholders'  companies  of  European 
origin  established  in  Russia  between  1 9 1 1  and  1 9 1  3 
averaged  1,736,000  roubles  per  company,  while  the 
average  capital  of  the  Russian  companies  founded  during 
the  same  period  was  only  1,222,000  roubles.  Compe- 
tition, therefore,  is  a  difficult  matter  for  the  Russian 
capitalist. 

The  situation  as  regards  national  capital  is  compli- 
cated by  the  distribution  of  foreign  capital  through- 
out the  various  branches  of  industry.  The  most  im- 
portant branches — for  instance,  metallurgy,  coal-mining, 
weaving,  etjc. — are  largely  under  the  control  of  European 
capital. 

Here  are  some  significant  facts  and  figures  : — 

In  the  basin  of  Southern  Russia,  at  the  beginning 
of  the  twentieth  century,  75  per  cent,  of  the  coal  pro- 
duced came  from  1 5  large  concerns,  of  which  two- 
thirds,  furnishing  62  per  cent,  of  the  annual  yield, 
belonged  to  Europeans.  In  the  Dombrova  mines,  in 
Poland,  out  of  1 3  large  undertakings  6  are  the  property 
of  foreigners,  yielding  86  per  cent,  of  the  total  pro- 
duction. 

As  for  iron,  we  find  the  same  state  of  affairs.  For 
example,  in  the  basin  of  the  Donetz,  at  the  beginning 
of  the  twentieth  century,  out  of  23  large  steelworks, 
only  2  were  the  property  of  Russians  j  1 5  are  the 
property  of  foreigners,  or  "  mixed  "  companies  in  which 
the  foreign  element  predominates. 

At  Baku,  once  more,  the  foreign  domination  is  indis- 
putable. In  1909  Baku  exported  371,932,500  poods 
of  petroleum  and  by-products,  the  yield  of  45  enter- 
prises. But  more  than  45  per  cent,  of  this  quantity, 
or  167,982,000  poods,  represented  the  contribution  of 
5   great  companies  of  European  ownership. 

As  for  the  textile  industry,  one  of  the  first  fields  to 
be  invaded  by  foreign  capital,  it  already  boasts  of  a' 
few  centres,  particularly  in  the  region  of  Moscow,  in 
which  it  has  become   fairly  Russianized,   and  most  of 


56  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

the  names  of  foreign  origin  borne  by  the  heads  of 
industrial  houses  in  this  part  of  Russia  are  the  names 
of  Russian  subjects.  But  in  other  parts  the  weaving 
of  fabrics  is  almost  entirely  controlled  by  foreign 
capital.  Such  is  notably  the  case  at  Lodz,  in  Poland, 
and  in  the  surrounding  district. 

These  facts  enable  us  to  state  without  exaggeration 
that  European  capital  is  still  a  very  great  power  in 
the   principal    departments    of   Russian   production. 

Which  nations  provide  the  capital  that  feeds  Russian 
industry? 

In  the  metallurgical  industry,  British,  Belgian,  and 
French  capital  predominates.  The  real  creator  of 
metallic  exploitation  in  the  Donetz  region  was  an  Eng- 
lishman, the  famous  John  Hughes,  who  was  also  the 
pioneer  of  coal-mining  in  the  European  manner  in  the 
same  region.  The  memory  of  this  energetic  pioneer 
is  perpetuated  in  the  name  of  one  of  the  leading  in- 
dustrial centres  of  Southern  Russia,  Youzovka  (Hughes 
being  pronounced  as  Youz  in  Russian,  hence  Youzovka, 
"  the  town  of  Youz  "). 

After  him  some  French  capitalists  established  them- 
selves in  the  Donetz  region,  at  Krivo'i  Rog  (in  1880). 
Ten  years  later  a  well  -  known  Belgian  company, 
Cockerill  &'  Co.,  established  a  large  works  near  the 
town  of  Yekaterinoslav.  A  host  of  industrial  promoters 
of  various  nationalities  followed  them,  among  whom 
were  even  Americans,  but  the  principal  contributions 
of  foreign  capital  to  the  industries  of  Southern  Russia 
were  due  to  English,  French,  and  Belgian  investors. 

The  petroleum  industry  in  the  Caucasus  is  the  work 
of  Swedish  and  English  capital.  A  Swede,  Robert 
Nobel,  arriving  in  Baku  in  1877,  established,  five  years 
later,  a  company  for  the  production  of  petroleum,  which, 
as  far  as  Russia  was  concerned,  effected  a  veritable 
revolution  in  the  industry  and  gave  new  life  to  a 
whole  region.  In  1886  the  house  of  Rothschild  (of 
Paris)  joined  Nobel  on  the  Apcheron  peninsula,  there 
to   conduct,   with   him,    the   "  petroliferous    apostolate." 


THE  MATERIAL  BONDS  57 

It  treated  with  the  English  house  of  Lane  and 
McAndrew  for  the  exportation  of  the  product  on  com- 
mission. From  that  moment  there  was  an  influx  of 
English  (capital  for  the  exploitation  of  Russian  petroleum. 
The  English  were  able  not  only  to  buy  most  of  the 
enterprises  already  existing  in  Baku  and  the  district, 
but  have  also  monopolized  nearly  all  those  which  have 
since  been  undertaken. 

German  capital  has  been  attracted  by  the  mines 
and  foundries  of  Poland  (at  Sosnowice  and  Dombrova), 
where  the  first  large  works  were  established,  between 
1856  and  1863,  by  Count  Renard  and  Major  von 
Kramsta,  who  came  from  Prussia.  But  it  has  since 
then  been  attracted  more  especially  by  the  textile 
industry,  which,  although  it  was  introduced  by  British, 
Dutch,  and  French  capitalists,  none  the  less  received 
a  powerful  impulse  at  the  hands  of  a  German,  Ludwig 
Knoop,  who  came  to  Moscow  in  1839  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  an  English  house,  and  there  established, 
first  with  the  assistance  of  British  capitalists,  but  after- 
wards independently,  122  weaving-sheds  in  the  regions 
of  Petersburg  and  Moscow.  A  popular  proverb 
enshrines  his  memory  :  Gdid  tserkov,  tarn  pop,  gdie 
fabrika,  tarn  Knoop — "  .Where  there  is  a  church,  there 
is  a  pope  ;  where  there  is  a  factory,  there  is  a  Knoop," 
and  the  addition  is  sometimes  made  :  "  Gdii  izba, 
tarn   ktop — "Where  there   is  an  inn   there  are  bugs." 

But  to-day,  as  I  have  already  stated,  the  role  of 
German  capital  in  the  textile  industry  of  Central  Russia 
has  decreased.  In  Poland,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
enormous  ;  and  the  city  of  Lodz  is  not  Polish,  but 
half  German,  ,  ■ 

V 

We  shall  now  touch  upon  a  particularly  serious 
question  :  the  weight  and  the  tendency  which  each 
of  the  foreign  elements  exerts  upon  the  economic  system 
of  Russia. 

In   the   industrial   undertakings   of   the   country   the 


58  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

French  and  English  are  first.  But  this  is  not  the  case 
with  the  general  economic  relations  of  Russia  with 
Europe — that  is,  when  we  come  to  deal  not  merely 
with  the  investment  of  European  capital  in  Russian 
industries,  but  also  with  the  commercial  exchanges 
between  Russia  and  the  various  countries  of  Europe, 
and  the  loans  concluded  by  the  Russian  State  in  the 
various  European  money  markets.  As  to  loans,  France 
occupies  an  exceptional  position.  She  has  lent 
the  Russian  Empire  io"6i7,  milliards  of  francs 
(£424,000,000)  in  external  loans  and  1*344  milliards 
(£53,760,000)  in  domestic  loans,  besides  the 
310,000,000  (£12,400,000)  lent  to  the  zemstvos  and 
municipalities,  and  without  counting  the  so-called 
"  railway  loan  "  of  500,000,000  (£20,000,000)  con- 
cluded before  the  present  war  and  the  military  loans 
issued  in  the  course  of  the  war. 

But  the  commercial  exchanges  between  France  and 
Russia  leave  much  to  be  desired,  and  in  this  respect 
Germany  is  ahead  of  France. 

"  Towards  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  the 
commercial  transactions,  exportation  and  importation, 
between  France  and  Russia  on  the  one  hand  and  Russia 
and  Germany  on  the  other,  were  of  almost  equal  dimen- 
sions ;  the  average  at  this  period  (between  1841  and 
1850)  was  74,000,000  francs  (nearly  £3,000,000)  for 
France  and  85,000,000  (£3,400,000)  for  Germany, 
the  inequality  being  relatively  unimportant.  The  pro- 
gressive development,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  of  the  trade  exchanges  between  Russia 
and  the  rest  of  Europe  had  as  its  basis  the  Ruisisian 
customs  tariff,  which  was  uniform  for  goods  of  what- 
ever origin,  yet  to-day  l  Germany  has  reached,  in  respect 
of  her  exports  to  Russia,  an  annual  average  of 
500,600,000  francs,  or  £20,024,000,  her  imports  from 
Russia  being  valued  at  426,000,000,  or  £16,800,000, 
while  the  French  exports  to  Russia  stand  at  66,660,000 
francs,  or  £2,666,000,  and  the  imports  at  168,000,000 
francs  or  £6,7,20,000. 

1  In  the  last  years  of  the  nineteenth  century. 


THE   MATERIAL  BONDS  59 

"  Thus  in  the  last  fifty  years  the  German  trade  with 
Russia  has  grown  to  eleven  and  a  half  times  what  it  was, 
while  the  French  trade  is  only  three  times  what  it  was."  ' 

Such  was  the  situation  at  the  end  of  the  last  century. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century  the  trade 
relations  between  France  and  Russia  are  shown  by 
the  following  figures  : — 

Exports  from  Russia  Exports  from  France 

Year*.  to  France  (in  to  Russia  (in 

millions  of  francs).  millions  of  francs). 

ic)01^    i57'5  71'8 

1908       171-8  883 

1909       2370  130*3 

1910       248-9  i58"o 

These  figures,  taken  from  the  statistics  published 
by  the  Russian  Customs  Administration,  are  published 
by  M.  A.  Giraud,  Secretary  to  the  Russian  Chamber 
of  Commerce  in  Paris.2  To  permit  of  a  comparison, 
M.  Giraud  also  gives  some  statistics  of  German  trade 
in  Russia.  From  these  we  see  that  "  the  trade  relations 
between  France  and  Russia,  compared  to  those  of 
Germany,  are  deplorable."  This  will  be  seen  by  the 
following  table,  which  gives  the  proportion  of  French 
and  German  exports  to  Russia  as  compared  with  the 
total  sum  of  Russian  imports  : — 


Years. 

German  exports  to 
Russia  (per  cent,  of  total 
Russian  imports). 

French  expor 

Russia  (per  cent 

Russian  imp 

I9OI-5      ... 

...           ... 

358 

4'3 

I906-IO   ... 



39'5 

4'5 

I9II 

... 

42-0 

4'9 

1912 

... 

50-0 

5-3 

I913 

•  •  •                        •  •  • 

527 

46 

The  absolute  figures  are  no  more  consoling  to  French 
trade.  "While  in  five  years  (1908-12)  the  German 
imports  have  risen  from  331  to  519  million  roubles, 
the  French  imports  have  increased  only  from  35  to 
55   millions.       The  customs  tariff  is  still  the  same   for 

1  M.  Halperine-Kaminsky,   France  et  Russie:    Alliance  iconomique, 
Paris,  E.  Flammarion,  pp.  4-9. 
*  A.  Giraud,  Le  Commerce  exterieur  de  la  Russie,  Paris,  1915,  p.  10. 


60  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

all  countries,;  and  the  question  of  distance  cannot 
be  invoked  as  a  reason  for  this  inferiority,  since  Austria- 
Hungary,  which  has  a  common  frontier  with  Russia, 
comes  far  below  France,  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  United  States,  which  are  ten  times  as  distant,  show 
very  much  larger  figures  ;  in  1 9 1 2,  for  example, 
85*7  million  roubles,  as  against   55-2  for  France."1 

The  commercial  superiority  of  Germany  is  crushing, 
not  only  with  regard  to  France,  but  also  as  compared 
with  the  other  countries  of  Europe.  The  following 
figures  prove  this  for  the  years    1908  and   19 13  ;-*» 

Russian  Exports  to  Various  Countries,  1908 


(E 

ngland 
1908. 

excepted) ■ 

1913. 

Germany 

•  .  • 

■  •  • 

278-9 

(in  millions  of  roubles) 

452-6 

Holland 

•  •• 

•  *• 

93"5 

177*4 

France " 

•  •  • 

•  •• 

64-6 

ioo*8 

Austria-  H  ungary 

... 

49-0 

65-2 

Belgium 

... 

•  •  • 

34*4 

64-6 

Italy 

•  •  • 

... 

29-9 

73'6 

Denmark 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

3i-5 

357 

Turkey 

... 

... 

21-5 

34"4 

Roumania 

•  •• 

... 

12-8 

2I"6 

Sweden 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

47 

1 1-4 

Norway 

•  •• 

•  •* 

5-8 

8-6 

Spain    ... 

•  •• 

•  •  a 

5'° 

8-9 

Russian  Imports  from  Various  Countries 
(England  excepted) 

1908.  1913. 

(in  millions  of  roubles)     6427 

56-0 

34"6 
21-5 
167 
i6#9 
161 
9-8 
8-6 
12-8 


Germany 

... 

331-8 

France* 

... 

357 

Austria- Hungary 

... 

26*4 

Holland 

•■• 

"'5 

Italy     

... 

12-9 

Turkey 

... 

7-1 

Sweden 

••• 

IO'I 

Norway 

... 

87 

Belgium 

... 

8-i 

Denmark 

... 

87 

*  A.  Giraud,  op.  cit.  p.  17. 

'  The  figures  relating  to  France  do  not  entirely  coincide  with  the  per- 
centage already  cited.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  they  are  drawn  from 
different  sources — the  reports  of  the  French  and  of  the  Russian  Customs. 


THE  MATERIAL  BONDS  61 

The  United  States,  in  1908,  exported  75-4  milldon 
roubles'  worth  of  goods  to  Russia  and  Imported 
goods  to  the  value  of  2*8  million  roubles.  In  191 3 
the  exports  were  74* 1  millions  and  the  imports 
1 4#  1   millions. 

As  for  England,  her  place  on  the  Russian  market 
is  far  larger  than  that  of  the  other  European  countries, 
excepting  Germany. 

England's  imports  from  Russia  in  1908  were  220*  1 
million  roubles  and  in  191 3,  226*8  millions  ;  her 
exports  to  Russia  in  1908  were  119*9  millions  and  in 
191 3,  170*3  millions.  A  comparison  of  these  figures 
with  those  of  Russo-German  trade  shows  that  in  this 
period  of  five  years  (1908-13)  the  German  exports  to 
Russia  increased  by  311,000,000  roubles,  while  the 
British  exports  increased  by  only  50,000,000,  making 
the  relative  increase  respectively  193  per  cent,  and 
41  per  cent. 

It  appears,  therefore,  undeniably  that,  as  far  as 
Russia  at  least  is  concerned,  the  German  lamentations 
as  to  British  competition  are  without  foundation.  Far 
from  being  prevented  by  England  from  making  colossal 
conquests  on  the  Russian  markets,  it  is  the  Germans 
who  little  by  little  are  ousting  all  their  competitors, 
and  are  doing  their  best  to  monopolize  the  market. 

yj 

.What  are  the  causes  of  the  commercial  supremacy 
of  Germany  in  Russia? 

In  the  first  place,  geographical  proximity,  which 
favours  penetration.  We  have  already  seen  that  for 
9,421  French  and  7,481  English  subjects  the  census 
of  1897  numbered  158,103  German  subjects  who  had 
immigrated  into  Russia.  But  we  must  not  forget  that 
besides  these  Germans  who  are  still  German  subjects 
there  are  the  inhabitants  of  the  Baltic  provinces,  the 
farmers  of  the  Volga  basin  and  Southern  Russia,  and 
so  forth.  According  to  the  census  of  1897,  the 
inhabitants  of  Russia  whose  mother-tongue  was  German 


62  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

made  a  total  of  1,790,500  persons,  who  to-day  must 
have  increased  to  at  least   2,000,000. 

Contiguity  facilitates  the  economic  Germanization  of 
Russian  Poland.  It  also  facilitates  commercial  ex- 
changes. At  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century 
the  foreign  trade  of  T^issia  was  carried  mostly  by  sea  : 
from  1802  to  1804  88  per  cent,  of  the  exports  and 
78  per  cent,  of  the  imports  went  by  sea.  A  century 
later,  on  the  other  hand,  a  considerable  part  of  this 
trade— a  third  of  the  exports  and  half  the  imports — 
was  already  crossing  the  terrestrial  frontiers,  and  the 
greater  portion  of  it  the  German  frontier.  Germany 
also  possesses  a  very  large  part  of  the  maritime  trade 
of  Russia,  thanks  to  the  proximity  of  the  German 
and  Russian  ports  on  the  Baltic  Sea. 

The  Russian  customs  tariffs  are  the  same,  or  almost 
the  same,  for  all  countries,  and  they  are  extremely 
high  (on  an  average  they  amount  almost  to  a  third 
part  of  the  value  of  the  merchandise).  Nevertheless, 
German  industry  has  invaded  the  Russian  market  and 
has  easily  beaten  all  competitors,  without  excepting 
the  English,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  figures, 
published  by  the  Russian  Professor  Goldstein,  one  of 
the  best  authorities  on  this  subject.1 


Year. 

Russian  imports  from 

Germany  (per  cent,  of 

total  imports). 

Russian  imports  from 

England  (per  cent,  of 

total  imports). 

I 898-1902 

... 

... 

... 

34'° 

1 8-6 

1902-7 

... 

•  •• 

... 

37-2 

14-8 

1908-12 

•  •« 

... 

•  •  • 

4i"6 

13*4 

1912      ... 

•  •a 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 

45'4 

I2'2 

1913      ... 

*  •  • 

... 

... 

47-5 

12-5 

Jan.-June 

1914 

• .  * 

•  •• 

49-6 

i3'3 

The  geographical  conditions,  and  even  the  advantages 
of  the  Russo-German  commercial  treaty  in  1904  and 
the  complaisance  of  the  Germanophile  and  reactionary 
bureaucracy,  are  not  sufficient  to  explain  the  triumph 
of  the  Germans  in  our  country. 

1  See  his  article  on  The  German  Yoke  in  the   Roussko'ie  Slovo  for  the 
27th  January,  1915,  Moscow. 


THE   MATERIAL  BONDS  63 

The  real  cause  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  special 
system  adopted  by  the  German  industrial  syndicates  : 
the  system  of  "  export  bounties,"  which  permits  them 
not  only  to  face  the  import  duties,  but  even  to  sell 
their  products  more  cheaply  abroad  than  at  home. 

Here  are  some  of  the  results  thus  obtained  :— 

In  1909  the  Rheinland-Westphalia  Coal  Mines 
Syndicate  sold  in  France  a  large  quantity  of  coal  at 
15  francs  50  per  ton.  Import  duties  and  expenses  of 
transport  being  deducted,  this  coal  was  sold  at 
5  marks  21,  while  on  the  German  market  it  was 
selling,  at  the  same  moment,  for  10  marks  50,  or 
double  the  price.  At  the  end  of  1900  a  German 
syndicate  of  wire-drawers  (the  wire  in  question  being 
employed  in  making  nails)  '  decided  to  fix  the  price 
of  their  product  at  185  marks  per  ton  for  Germany 
and  115  marks  for  the  foreign  market.  The  German 
alcohol  distillers'  syndicate,  or  Spiritusring,  sold  its 
product  (in  1904  and  later)  at  22  marks  the  hecto- 
litre in  Germany  and   11   marks  in  London.1 

The  Germans  make  use  of  this  system  in  exporting 
their  goods  to  Russia,  where  it  has  won  an  even  easier 
victory  than  in  countries  which  are,  economically  speak- 
ing, ahead  of  Russia,  such  as  France  and  England. 

With  the  help  of  export  bounties  and  various  other 
measures,  Germany  has  thus  made  a  rapid  conquest 
of  the  Russian  market,  from  which  she  has  ousted  all 
competitors. 

In  1902  the  Russian  Ministry  of  Finances  published 
an  official  note,  in  which  it  characterized  the  work  of  the 
German  industrial  syndicates  in  the  following  terms  :— 

"  The  policy  of  exporting  merchandise  at  prices  lower 
than  those  of  the  home  market  is  extremely  painful 
and  disastrous  to  those  countries  which  have  to  suffer 
its  employment,  as  it  ruins  the  native  industry.  .  .  . 
There  is  to-day  only  one  means  of  struggling  against 

1  These  figures  are  taken  from  a  recent  Russian  work  by  M.  Gold- 
stein :  The  War  of  the  German  Syndicates,  Russian  Exports,  and  the 
Economic  Isolation  of  Germany  (Moscow,  1916). 


64  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

the  evil  of  cheap  goods  exported  by  these  syndicates  : 
it  is,  to  defend  native  industry  by  increasing  the  customs 
duties.  But  this  means,  to  which  the  Russian  Govern- 
ment has  been  forced  to  resort,  has  its  disadvantages 
and  its  dangers  as  regards  native  industry,  as  it  implies 
frequent  modifications  of  the  customs  tariffs  and  an 
exaggerated  system  of  protection.  .  .  .  Besides,  this 
increase  of  the  tariff  is  unjust  ;  provoked  by  the  actions 
of  the  syndicates  of  one  or  of  several  countries,  it 
penalizes  all  the  foreign  States,  which  to-day  are  all 
bound  together  by  economic  treaties."  1 

Thus  the  stratagems  of  the  German  exporters'  syndi- 
cates damage  not  Russian  industry  alone,  but  that  of 
other  countries.  Moreover,  the  German  population  itself 
is  forced  to  submit  to  an  artificial  increase  of  prices 
in  order  to  provide  the  syndicates  with  the  means  of 
carrying  on  their  system  of  forced  exports  at  low  prices. 

Yet  another  consideration  presents  itself.  As  I  have 
explained  in  my  Russia  and  th\e  Great  War,2  the  general 
character  of  the  economic  relations  between  the  two 
countries  reveals  an  obvious  tendency  on  the  part  of 
Germany  to  make  Russia  her  colony.  I  will  not  repeat 
what  I  said  in  the  aforesaid  work  ;  I  merely  wish 
to  draw  the  reader's  attention  to  a  peculiarity  which 
is  by  no  means  understood.  A  great  difference  is  to 
be  remarked  in  the  relations  between  Germany  and 
Russia  :  Russia  imports  from'  Germany  principally  manu- 
factured goods  and  exports  raw  materials.  This  is  to 
say  that  German  industry  buys  its  raw  materials  at  a  low 
price  from  Russia  and  sells  them'  after  manufacturing 
them.     This  is   precisely  the  function  of  a  metropolis. 

Such  a  conception  of  exchange  is  contrary  to  any 
real  economic  "  Europeanization  "  of  Russia,  for  this 
process  cannot  be  conceived  without  the  free  co-opera- 
tion of  all  the  European  factors  in  the  interior  of  the 
country,  followed  by  the  free  development  of  the  forces 
of  indigenous  capitalism,  which  would  gradually  acquire 
European  forms.,  .  '  .         1 

•  See  the  Financial  Messenger  (Petersburg,  1902,  No.  25). 

1  Russia  and  the  Great  War,  trans.  B.  Miall,  T.  Fisher  Unwin,  1915. 


PART   THE    SECOND 

RUSSIA   IN   ARMS   AND   EUROPE 


CHAPTER    I 

I.  Is  the  Russian  people  warlike  ?     II.  A  little  philology  and  arithmetic 


All  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  masses  of  the 
Russian  people  are  unanimous  in  declaring  that  they  are 
devoid  of  warlike  aspirations  and  fundamentally  pacific. 

The  popular  poetry  and  religion  of  Russia,  for 
example,  are  remarkable  for  the  profound  love  of  peace 
which  has  penetrated  them  from  birth,  and  has  sur- 
vived into  our  own  times.  This  love  of  peace  is 
revealed  by  even  the  most  ancient  manifestations  of 
the  popular  genius. 

'  After  the  end  of  paganism,  as  before  it,  warlike 
subjects  play  not  the  smallest  sensible  part  in  the 
religious  thought  of  the  mass  of  the  Russian  people. 
The  Russian  Olympus  is  distinguished  by  the  profoundly 
peaceable,  and,  if  we  may  say  so,  the  civilian  character 
of  its  divinities.  This  is  particularly  striking  if  we 
compare  it  with  the  Olympus  of  the  ancient  Greeks, 
or  with  the  world  of  the  ancient  Germanic  or  Scandi- 
navian divinities.  Instead  of  Pallas -Athene,  protected 
by  her  cuirass,  pagan  Russia  had  her  Moist  Earth- 
Mother,  and  Christian  Russia  her  Saint  Sophia,  the 
Most  Wise,  whose  only  weapon  is  her  gentle  wisdom. 
Instead  of  Jupiters  and  Neptunes  waging  war  among 
themselves  and  upon  humanity,  we  find,  in  ancient 
Russia,  Voloss,  the  protector  of  flocks  and  herds,  and 
Peroun,  of  whose  bellicose  tendencies  no  record  has 
survived  ;  while  the  forests  of  ancient  Greece  were 
the   dwelling-place   of   Diana    Huntress,    with    her    bow 

67 


68  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

and  arrows,  the  forests  of  pagan  and  Christian  Russia 
are  peopled  with  Roussalkas,  into  which  young  girls 
are  transformed  '  who  do  not  die  at  their  death/  and 
who  dance  their  rounds  in  the  soft  moonlight. 

"  Although,  in  these  pagan  beliefs  of  the  Russian 
Slav,  or  in  the  tales  and  legends  of  his  modern 
descendant,  we  sometimes  witness  the  appearance  of 
some  sanguinary  being,  who  slays  men  and  is  thirsty 
for  their  blood,  this  is  neither  a  god  nor  a  goddess, 
but  an  '  impure  force.' 

"  When  the  pagan  divinities  of  the  Russian  Slavs, 
being  Christianized,  assumed  a  new  vesture  and  a  new 
exterior,  becoming  the  God  and  the  Saints  of  Christ- 
ianity, they  did  not  on  that  account  lose  their  pacific 
character.  For  example,  let  us  take  St.  George,  the 
type  of  the  warrior-saint.  Of  the  steel-clad  warrior, 
lance  in  hand,  mounted  on  his  great  charger,  the  Russian 
peasant  has  made  a  peaceable  and  useful  auxiliary 
of  his  laborious  life.  He  has  given  St.  George  the 
care  of  the  village  pasture. 

"In  the  spring  of  each  year,  on  the  23rd  of  April 
(Russian  style),  which  is  St.  George's  Day,  the  peasants 
of  all  Russia  leave  in  the  fields  their  herds  of  cowsv, 
their  horses,  and  their  sheep,  exhausted  by  the 
long  winter  sojourn  in  the  byre.  Early  in  the  morning 
of  this  day  the  peasants  and  their  womenfolk  make 
the  round  of  the  sown  fields,  begging  St.  George  'to 
rise  early  in  the  morning,  to  open  the  soil  and  to 
sprinkle  the  dew  on  the  rebellious  barley  with  its  fine 
ears  and  beautiful  grains.'  Then  they  let  out  their 
flocks  and  herds,  which  they  drive  with  branches  of 
willow  blessed  in  the  church,  and  pray  to  '  the  kindly 
George  to  guard  their  herds  in  the  fields  and  the  woods 
from  the  greedy  wolf,  the  cruel  bear,  and  every  evil 
beast.' 

"  A  village  shepherd,  a  farmer  instead  of  a  knight  ! 
Such  is  the  metamorphosis  undergone  by  the  tradi- 
tional figure  of  St.  George  when  the  saint  found  his 
way  into  the  midst  of  the  Russian  peasantry  ! 


RUSSIA   IN   ARMS   AND   EUROPE  69 

"  Pacific  sentiments  and  a  natural  aversion  from  war 
are  to  be  found  also  in  the  Russian  proverbs,  which 
realize  plainly  that  '  war  loves  blood,'  but  that  '  blood 
is  not  water,'  and,  consequently,  that  '  a  bad  peace  is 
better  than  a  good  war.'  "  ' 

•When  we  come  to  look  into  the  heroic  Russian  epopee 
—the  epic  of  the  bylinas — we  shall  expect  to  find  a 
warlike  element.  But,  in  reality,  even  jn  these  essen- 
tially warlike  songs  pacifism  is  predominant,  and  the 
warriors  give  way  before  the  labourers,  the  peaceful 
workers.  One  of  the  bylinas  represents  an  encounter 
between  Volga  Vseslavitch,  a  proud  and  noble  knight, 
and  Mikoula  Selianinovitch,  a  peasant  and  a  tiller  of 
the  soil,  who  triumphs  over  Volga  even  without  a  fight. 

"Mikoula  is  the  rustic  Hercules.  .  .  .  The  Russian 
epic  is  perhaps  the  only  one  (save  the  Finnish  epic,  the 
Kalevala)  in  which  a  great  heroic  part  is  played  by  a 
tiller  of  the  soil  "—so  M.  Alfred  Rambaud  remarks  in 
his  book,  La  Russie  E pique.  "It  is  by  this  above  all 
that  we  realize  that  the  bylinas  were  made  by  the  people 
and  for  the  people.  The  French  chansons  des  gestes, 
for  example,  are  of  a  more  aristocratic  character  ;  our 
trouveres  thought  before  all  else  of  their  auditors, 
barons  and  noble  warriors  ;  never  would  they  have 
dreamed  of  humiliating  them  before  a  base-born 
hero." 2 

The  same  comparison  may  be  made  between  the 
Russian  epic  and  the  German  epic. 

"  In  the  Germanic  epopee  Thor,  the  patron  of  the 
toilers,  is  constantly  overridden  by  Odin,  the  warrior  ; 
it  is  just  the  contrary  in  the  Slav  epic." 

The  best  loved  and  the  most  popular  hero  of  the 
Russian  bylinas  is  Ilya  Mourometz,  the  peasant's  son 
— this  is  the  epithet  which  invariably  accompanies  Ilya's 

*  Quoted  from  my  article  La  Guerre  et  les  soldats  dans  la  potsie  popu- 
laire  Russe,  in  La  Revue  de  Paris,  1916. 

2  Alfred  Rambaud,  La  Russie  Epique  (p.  37).  This  work  was  pub- 
lished forty  years  ago  (in  1876),  but  it  has  remained  to  this  day  one  of 
the  best  works  on  the  history  of  the  poetry  of  ancient  Russia. 


70  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

name  in  all  the  bylinas,  as  the  epithet  Selianinovitch — 
meaning  "  the  villager  "  or  "  the  son  of  the  villager  " — 
accompanies  the  name  of  Mikoula. 

Ilya,  the  peasant's  son,  who  performs  a  great  number 
of  varied  exploits,  commences  by  a  rustic  exploit — by 
tilling  the  soil.  Having  received  from  his  father,  the 
aged  peasant,  the  commandment  "  to  plot  nothing 
against  the  Tartar,  not  to  kill  the  Christian  on  the  bare 
plain,"  and  to  busy  himself  "  with  good  and  not  with 
evil  works,"  Ilya  strives  religiously  to  observe  this 
commandment.  He  uses  his  strength  only  to  struggle 
against  evil  and  injustice,  to  defend  his  country  against 
enemies  from  without.  He  is  a  peasant  warrior,  who 
seeks  neither  aggression  nor  conquest,  and  who  accepts 
battle  only  as  a  means  of  legitimate  defence. 

War,  in  the  Russian  bylinas,  is  as  a  rule  accepted 
only  as  a  means  of  defence  ;  indeed,  the  bylinas  repre- 
sent it  only  as  such.  No  doubt  the  poetry  of  the  popu- 
lace considered  it  unworthy  to  sing  of  offensive  war. 
The  hero  of  the  Russian  bylinas  is  above  all  the 
defender  of  his  native  soil,  but  by  no  means  the  con- 
queror of  foreign  territory  ;  he  is  the  guardian  of  his 
people's  independence,  but  by  no  means  the  oppressor 
of  other  peoples. 

II 

If  my  readers  will  permit  me  a  brief  incursion  into 
the  domain  of  philology,  I  would  call  their  attention  to 
a  very  curious  fact:  the  terms  which  serve  to  denote 
the  heroes  of  the  Russian  bylinas  are  not  of  Russian 
origin.  Bogatyr  and  vitiaz,  which  are  equivalent  to 
the  words  "  valiant  knight,"  or  preux  chevalier,  are 
derived,  the  one  from  the  Turco -Mongolian  words  batyr 
or  batour,  bagadour  or  baghatour,  and  the  other  from 
the  Scandinavian  word  viking.  Certainly,  to  denote 
the  heroes  of  whom  they  sing  the  bylinas  also  employ 
the  two  words  polenitsa  and  khorobre  or  khrabre  ; 
but  these  two  words  have  not  a  specially  warlike  sig- 
nificance.    The  first  signifies   "giant,"  "man  of  great 


RUSSIA   IN   ARMS   AND   EUROPE  71 

size  "  ;  the  second  (which  we  find  again  in  the  modern 
adjective  khrabryi)  means  "  courageous  or  virile  man." 
As  for  bogatyr  and  vitiaz,  they  have  a  more  definitely- 
bellicose  and  aggressive  meaning.  Now,  both  are  of 
foreign  origin  ;  the  one  comes  from  the  Turco-Mongols, 
against  whom  the  Slavs  of  Russia  fought  for  ages  ;  the 
second  from  the  Scandinavians,  or  Variags,  who,  accord- 
ing to  the  legend,  as  we  know,  were  the  first  political 
and  military  organizers  to  enter  Russia. 

We  cannot  but  regard  as  characteristic  the  fact  that 
the  first  words  denoting  the  warrior  by  vocation  in  the 
ancient  Russian  epic  are  non-Russian  words,  taken  from 
foreign  tongues,  so  that  the  ancient  Russian  vocabulary 
evidently  has  no  special  term  to  denote  the  professional 
soldier.  It  is  obvious,  then,  that  this  calling  did  not 
play  any  important  part  in  the  life  of  the  ancient  Russian 
Slavs. 

Lastly,  I  would  remark  that  the  foreign  elements  still 
have  a  very  perceptible  and  even  a  preponderant  in- 
fluence on  the  ulterior  development  of  the  military 
forces  in  Russia.  We  can  follow  and  estimate  this 
influence  by  studying  the  composition  and  the  history 
of  the  Russian  vocabulary  in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries,  which  were  those  during  which 
the  Russian  regular  army  was  being  organized,  and 
which  enriched  the  language  with  a  host  of  terms  which 
were  nearly  all  borrowed  from  foreign  vocabularies. 
The  names  of  nearly  all  ranks  or  grades,  from  the 
simple  soldat  to  the  gueneralanchef  and  the  gueneral- 
issimas  are  taken  from  the  French  or  German  ;  as  are 
unteroffitzer  and  feldjebet,  kaptendrmus  and  bombardir, 
grenader  and  dragoun,  goussar  and  feierwerker.  The 
pupils  of  the  secondary  military  colleges  are  known  as 
kadety  (cadets)  ;  those  of  the  officers'  schools  are 
junkerd'.  The  officer  who  carries  orders  for  a  general 
or  colonel  is  the  adjutant,  and  the  soldier  who  fulfils 
the  same  function  for  an  officer  is  an  or  dinar  etz.  The 
terms  which  denote  the  different  arms  of  the  service 
are  also  of  foreign  origin :     such  are  artiUeriia,  kaval- 


72  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

leriia,  sapiory  (sappers),  and  those  which  serve  to  denote 
various  military  constructions :  such  as  bastidn,  shdntzy 
(from  the  German  schanzeri),  fortifikdtsiya,  etc.  Of 
alien  origin  also  are  the  terms  denoting  the  institutions 
of  the  medical  service  and  the  military  supply  service: 
gospital,  lazaret,  intendantsvo,  etc.1 

But   I   must  not   linger  over  these  details,   although 
they  are  interesting  and  worthy  of  attention. 

In  confining  myself  to  these  few  brief  hints  and 
returning  to  the  general  problem,  I  must  remark  that 
the  pacific  mentality  of  the  Russian  people  has  been  pre- 
served by  the  labouring  masses  down  to  our  own  day, 
and  we  shall  find  it,  for  example,  in  the  ideology  of  the 
numerous  religious  sects  of  our  times.  While  still  a 
pagan,  the  Russian  Slav  had  not,  among  his  gods,  any 
god  of  war  analogous  to  the  Greek  Ares  or  the  Roman 
Mars.  Having  become  a  Christian,  he  attributed  pacific 
characteristics  even  to  those  of  the  Christian  saints 
whom  the  West  had  endowed  with  a  bellicose  character. 
The  religious  strata  of  the  mass  of  the  Russian  people 
had  no  need  of  a  god  of  war,  cruel,  vindictive,  mur- 
derous, and  destructive.  In  the  profoundest  manifes- 
tations of  their  religious  sense  and  their  poetical  genius 
they  have  constantly  introduced  an  element  of  hostility 
to  war,  an  ideal  of  peace  (which  in  general,  however, 
has  admitted  of  defensive  war),  and  very  large  numbers 
of  Russian  sectarians  have  paid  by  imprisonment  or 
deportation  for  the  crime  of  preferring  the  god  of  peace 
to  the  god  of  war. 

The  natural  pacifism  of  the  Russian  people,  which  is 
attested  even  by  military  specialists  (for  example,  t?,y 
General  Kuropatkin  in  his  Memoirs  of  the  Russo- 
Japanese  War),  is  of  great  importance  in  that  it  facili- 

1  However,  some  military  terms  have  for  some  time  been  originated 
from  Russian  words.  Such,  for  example,  is  the  onomatopoeic  piishka, 
for  cannon.  The  common  soldier  is  known  as  riadovoi,  from  riad 
(rank) ;  the  sentinel  is  called  tshassovoi,  from  the  word  tshas  (hour), 
etc.  The  machine  gun  has  been  newly  baptized :  it  is  known  as  the 
pulcmiot,  from  pulia  (bullet),  and  metal  (to  throw) ;  and  so  forth. 


RUSSIA  IN  ARMS  AND   EUROPE  73 

tates  the  possibility  of  establishing  amicable  relations 
between  Russia  and  other  nations.  It  is  an  incontest- 
able fact  that  after  a  war  fought  by  Russia  against 
this  or  that  other  nation,  our  people  retains  no  resent- 
ment, no  hatred  of  its  recent  enemy,  and  is  ready  on 
the  morrow  of  a  sanguinary  conflict  to  treat  him  as 
a  friend. 

The  Russian  people  is  a  pacific  people,  and  yet  its  , 
history  is  full  of  wars.  In  the  last  two  centuries — the 
eighteenth  and  the  nineteenth,  to  confine  ourselves  to 
these— no  less  than  128  years  and  4  months  were  times 
of  armed  conflict,  which  leaves  71  years  and  8  months 
of  peace.  Of  the  35  wars  which  Russia  fought  during 
these  two  centuries,  2  were  internal  and  33  were 
external.  Twenty-two  were  wars  of  conquest,  their  * 
object  being  the  extension  of  the  national  territory, 
and  these  inflicted  upon  the  nation  101  years  of  war- 
fare. Four  were  purely  defensive  wars  ;  these  lasted 
4!  years.  The  rest  were  of  a  mixed  or  special 
character,  and  absorbed  only  10  years.  As  for  the 
internal  wars  (in  the  Caucasus  and  in  Asia),  these  lasted 
65  years. 

This  long  succession  of  wars  called  to  arms  at  least 
ten  millions  of  men  (according  to  the  official  statistics, 
winch  in  this  case  are  not  inclined  toward  exaggera- 
tion !),  and  a  third  part  of  them  was  lost.1 

We  shall  concern  ourselves,  in  the  present  work,  only 
with  those  of  Russia's  wars  which  were  waged  against 
European  States,  or  which  were  connected  with  the 
problems   of   Europeanizing  Russian   life. 

1    General  Kuropatkin,  Memoirs  of  the  Russo-Japanese  War,  ch.  i. 


CHAPTER    II 

I.  The  struggle  for  the  shores  of  the  Baltic  Sea  as  a  "  window  facing 
Europe" — The  Livonian  wars  of  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth 
centuries.  II.  The  "Period  of  Disturbances" — The  wars  of  the 
seventeenth  century — The  Russo-Swedish  War  under  Peter  the 
Great — Its  results  and  its  influence. 

I 

From  the  beginnings  of  her  history  down  to  the  end  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  when  (in  1480)  she  shook  off  the 
"  Tartar  yoke,"  to  which  she  had  been  subjected  for 
more  than  two  hundred  years,  Russia  was  confronted, 
in  the  south  and  the  south-east,  by  the  invasions  of  the 
Asiatic  tribes,  which  rose  again  and  again  in  gigantic 
waves.  But  the  moment  she  was  free  from  the  Tartar 
dominion  she  resolutely  turned  her  arms  and  her 
diplomacy  against  her  Western  enemies  and  neigh- 
bours ;  for  the  first  time  she  was  really  in  contact  with 
Europe. 

On  this  side  she  at  first  encountered  Livonia,  then  in 
the  hands  of  the  Livonian  Order,  and  allied  against 
Russia  with  Lithuania  and  Poland. 

The  real  conflict  with  Livonia,  however,  commenced 

only  later,  under  Ivan  the  Terrible,  whose  Government 

had  set  itself  the  definite  aim1  of  winning  ports   (Narva 

and   Reval)    on   the    Baltic   Sea.      Thus   the   desire   to 

possess  a  "  window  open  upon  Europe,"  which  is  always 

attributed   to    Peter   the   Great,   very   obviously   existed 

in  the  mind  of  his  terrible  ancestor,  who  was  a  tyrant 

to  his  subjects,  but  who  was  very  well  aware  of  Russia's 

need  of  relations  with  the  Western  world. 

So  Russia's  "  love  affair  with  Europe  "  began  mid- 
74 


RUSSIA  IN   ARMS   AND  EUROPE  75 

way  through  the  sixteenth  century  ;  and  it  still  survives, 
after  passing  through  alternate  periods  of  diplomatic 
negotiation  and  military  activity  to  the  impulses  of 
affection  and  of  passionate  and  disinterested  sympathy 
which  the  elite  of  Russia  conceived  for  "  the  West." 

"  The  object  of  the  Livonian  .War  was  to  gain  posses- 
sion of  commercial  highways.  .  .  .  Subsequent  events 
have  proved  that  for  Russia  the  possibility  of  a  process 
of  economic  evolution,  however  it  might  advance,  was 
almost  entirely  subordinated  to  the  existence  of  direct 
relations  with  the  more  progressive  nations  of  Europe. 
Contemporaries  felt  and  expressed  this  very  plainly. 
The  port  of  Narva  (Narew),  which  remained  in  Russian 
hands  even  after  her  first  losses,  seriously  preoccu- 
pied our  competitors.  '  The  Muscovite  sovereign  is  daily 
augmenting  his  power  by  the  acquisition  of  objects 
imported  through  Narva,'  wrote  the  Polish  king,  in 
his  embarrassment,  to  Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England, 
seeking  to  divert  the  English  from  trading  with 
Moscow  ;  '  for  they  import  by  this  route  not  only 
merchandise,  but  also  weapons  which  to  him  (Ivan 
IV)  were  unknown  before.  .  .  .  Hitherto  we  have  been 
able  to  conquer  him  because  he  was  without  learning 
and  knew  nothing  of  the  arts.  But  if  the  trade  with 
Narva  continues,  what  will  remain  unknown  to  him?  ' 
In  Moscow,  too,  this  was  understood  ;  and  as  the  port 
of  Narva  was  only  a  narrow  wicket-gate  opening  upon 
the  West,  they  wished  to  acquire  a  wider  path  of  access 
by  seizing  one  of  the  large  ports  of  the  Baltic  Sea.  But 
the  repeated  attempts  to  conquer  Reval  (in  1570  and 
1577)  ended  merely  in  a  war  with  Sweden,  in  which 
the  Muscovites  lost  even  Narva — and  also  its  Russian 
suburb,  Ivangorod.  They  were  thus  completely  cut 
off  from  £he  Baltic  Sea.  During  the  last  years  of  his  life 
Ivan  the  Terrible  thought  no  more  of  conquest  in  the 
West  ;  he  was  driven  to  defend  himself,  and  was 
thankful  not   to  lose  what  belonged  to  him."  • 

But  although   the  Livonian  wars  did  not  yield   Ivan 

1  M.  Pokrovsky,  Russian  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  128. 


76  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

III,  Vassili  III,  and  Ivan  the  Terrible  the  desired  fruit, 
they  did  at  least  convince  them  of  the  great  difference 
between  East  and  West,  even  in  this  one  matter  of  the 
art  of  war.  Those  who  had  defeated  the  Tartars  found 
themselves  powerless  before  the  Europeans.  This  lesson 
was  of  profit  to  them.  They  began  to  take  foreign 
soldiers  into  their  service,  at  first  singly,  but  then  in, 
batches.  These  soldiers  formed  private  corps,  but 
presently,  in  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
they  were  occupied  principally  in  the  work  of  instructing 
Russian  recruits,  who  were  made  up  into  "  regiments 
organized  in  the  foreign  mode."  Finally,  in  the  second 
half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  old  militia  was 
wholly  suppressed,  and  was  replaced  by  cavalry  con- 
sisting of  dragouny  and  rditary  and  infantry  of 
"  regiments    of    solddty ." 

The  Livonian  wars  assisted  the  Europeanization  of 
Russia  in  a  very  curious  fashion.  The  prisoners 
taken  by  the  Russians— Lithuanians,  Poles,  Germans, 
Livonians,  etc. — were  transported  into  the  interior  of 
the  country,  and  there  became  the  sponsors  of  Western 
culture . 

On  the  24th  of  February,  1556,  the  Governor  of 
Novgorod  received  from  Ivan  the  Terrible  an  order 
couched  in  the  following  terms :  "  In  Novgorod,  in 
the  suburbs,  provinces,  and  market  towns,  you  will  on 
divers  occasions  cause  it  to  be  cried  in  the  market-places 
that  it  is  not  permitted  that  the  sons  of  boyars,  nor  any 
other  persons,  shall  sell  German,  prisoners  to  the 
Germans  of  Livonia,  nor  send  them  to  Lithuania,  but 
only  to  Muscovite  towns.  I  shall  bestow  marks  of  my 
favour  on  the  sons  of  boyars  who  shall  inform  me  that 
any  one  has  sold  German  prisoners  to  the  Germans  ; 
and  a  man  of  base  condition  will  receive  50  roubles 
from  him  he  has  denounced.  As  for  the  vendors,  they 
will  be  thrown  into  prison  while  awaiting  our  decision. 
If  in  the  house  of  a  son  of  a  boyar  or  another  there 
should  be  found  a  German  prisoner  who  understands 
how  to  discover  silver  ore,  or  how  to  treat  silver,  gold, 


RUSSIA  IN   ARMS   AND   EUROPE  77 

copper,  or  tin,  or  is  acquainted  with  any  other  trade, 
you  will  give  orders  that  this  prisoner  shall  be  brought 
to  me  in  Moscow." 

M.  Ischchanian  remarks  in  this  connection:  "Such 
is  the  irony  of  fate  that  the  bearers  of  Western  civiliza- 
tion were  forced  as  slaves  to  cultivate  and  Europeanize 
the  barbarous   East." 

Russian  history  in  this  particular  repeats  a  phase  of 
Roman  history,  for  the  Greek  prisoners  of  ancient  Rome 
imported  with  them  the  high  culture  of  Hellenism. 

Some  of  the  prisoners  brought  back  from  Livonia  by 
Ivan  the  Terrible  were  distributed  among  the  various 
provincial1  towns  ;  others,  taken  to  Moscow,  had 
assigned  to  them  a  special  quarter  known  as  the 
Ndmetzka'ia  Sloboda  (literally  the  German  suburb  ; 
but  the  word  nemetz,  which  signifies  "  German  "  jn 
modern  Russian,  formerly  meant  "foreigner";  it  is 
derived  from  nem,  nemoi,  the  meaning  of  which  is 
dumb).  The  Tsar  granted  those  prisoners  established 
in  Moscow  certain  fiscal  privileges  ;  they  had  the  right 
to  sell  brandy  without  a  licence.  Very  soon  this  little 
colony  was  in  a  flourishing  condition.  But  in  a  fit  of 
tyrannical  fury  Ivan  the  Terrible  treated  these  strangers 
in  a  manner  already  so  familiar  to  his  Russian  subjects  ; 
in  1578  the  Sloboda  was  pillaged,  ruined,  and  laid 
waste,  by  direct  order  of  the  Tsar,  by  his  famous  guard 
of  opritshniki. 

However,  the  foreign  prisoners  appeared  so  useful 
to  Russia  that  Boris  Godunov  accorded  them  various 
favours  ;  he  restored  their  personal  liberty,  and  granted 
them  the  rights  enjoyed  by  other  inhabitants  of  the 
Russian  States. 

Under  one  of  the  first  Tsars  of  the  Romanov  dynasty 
the  re-establishment  of  the  "  foreign  suburb  "  was 
authorized  in  Moscow.  This  was  in  1652,  and  once 
again  there  existed,  in  the  midst  of  the  Russian  capital, 
a  little  town  peopled  by  foreigners. 

This  colony,  consisting  at  first  of  a  few  voluntary 
immigrants   and   prisoners    of   war,   became   the   centre 


78  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

of  a  stable  and  permanent  influence  ;  and  the  Inozetn- 
skaia  Sloboda,  established  in  1652,  was  Peter  the 
Great's  first  European  school. 

II 

The  period  extending  from  the  reign  of  Ivan  the 
Terrible  to  the  accession  of  the  first  Romanov,  which 
is  known  by  the  expressive  name  of  the  Period  of 
Disturbances  (literally  "  the  troubled  times  "),  was  full 
of  civil  discord,  in  which  were  involved  not  only  the 
various  classes  of  Russian  society,  but  also  the 
foreigners.  The  most  famous  protagonist  of  this  great 
upheaval,  Dimitri-Samozvanetz  (the  Impostor),  who 
claimed  to  be  a  son  of  Ivan  the  Terrible,  and  who 
for  a  few  months  even  occupied  the  Muscovite  throne, 
was  the  instrument  of  the  boyar  opposition,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  of  Poland,  who  provided  him  with  arms 
and  soldiers.  His  rival,  Vassili  Shnisky,  was  supported 
by  a  section  of  the  boyars  and  the  middle  classes  and 
by  the  English  traders.  He  also  applied  to  the  Swedes, 
and,  in  order  to  fight  Dimitri,  he  engaged  a  corps  of 
Swedish  soldiers  commanded  by  his  young  nephew, 
Prince   Mikhail    Skopine-Shnisky. 

Frenchmen  also  took  part  in  the  struggle,  as  volun- 
teers ;  some — the  Huguenots — serving  under  Shnisky 
with  his  Swedes  ;  others — the  Catholics — on  the  side  of 
Dimitri  and  his  Poles.  One  of  the  Catholics,  Captain 
Margaret,  has  left  us  an  account  of  his  sojourn  in 
Russia,  in  which  he  informs  his  compatriots  that  the 
land  of  the  Tsar  is  "  greater,  more  powerful,  more 
abundant  and  more  populous  than  is  supposed,"  that  it 
"  extends  Christianity  far  into  the  East,"  and  that  the 
Russians  felt  a  peculiar  esteem  for  France  and  the 
French  king.1 

.While  the  French  went  to  fight  in  Russia  only  as 
amateurs,  each  according  to  his  preference,  and  actuated 
by  a  thirst  for  glory,  gold,  and  adventure,  the  Poles  and 
Swedes  were  incited  by  their  political  ambitions. 

1  Margaret,  Etat  de  I'Empire  de  Russie. 


RUSSIA   IN   ARMS   AND  EUROPE  79 

Profiting  by  the  disorder  prevailing  in  Russia,  Poland 
occupied  the  Russian  territories  of  the  West,  together 
with  the  city  of  Smolensk.  Sweden  seized  upon 
Novgorod.  The  Poles  penetrated  as  far  as  the  walls 
of  Moscow,  which  they  besieged  (in  1610)  in  company 
with  one  of  the  numerous  false  Dimitris,  imitators  of 
Dimitri  I  and  pretenders  to  the  Muscovite  throne.  The 
Polish  crown  prince,  Vladislav,  also  attempted  to  gain 
the  throne.  In  1610  the  boyars,  and  the  dvorianie, 
weary  of  the  struggle,  recognized  him  as  the  Tsar  of 
Russia,  after  concluding  a  treaty  with  him  which 
granted  certain  political  and  social  privileges  to  the 
nobility,  and  in  particular  increased  its  power  over 
the  serfs. 

For  a  time,  then,  the  orthodox  Russia  of  the  Tsars, 
a  semi-Asiatic  Power,  shared  a  common  dynasty  with 
Poland,  Catholic,  feudalized,  and  "  Europeanized,"  and 
was  subjected  to  the  tutelage  of  Poland.  Who  can 
say  what  would  have  been  the  course  of  Russian  history 
had  the  Polish  Tsar  remained  in  power?  But  he  was 
unable  to  overcome  the  opposition  of  the  bourgeoisie, 
the  peasantry,  the  clergy,  and  a  portion  of  the  provincial 
nobility.  A  great  popular  movement  was  initiated  to 
'  unite  '  Russia  and  to  put  an  end  to  the  constant 
disturbances.  Directed  against  the  intrusion  of 
foreigners,  it  was  of  a  national  and  patriotic  character. 

"  Enemies  are  rending  the  Muscovite  State  on  every 
side  ;  we  have  become  an  object  of  shame  and  reproach 
to  all  neighbouring  sovereigns,"  said  a  proclamation 
issued  in  1 6 1 2,  calling  the  people  to  the  defence  of 
the  country.  In  862,  according  to  the  legend,  the 
Russians  spontaneously  invited  certain  Scandinavian 
princes  to  come  and  reign  over  them  >  in  1612  they 
rose  that  they  might  no  longer  be  subject  to  a  Polish 
prince.  So  in  eight  hundred  years  they  had  learned 
to  regard  themselves  as  a  nation,  opposed  to  other 
nations,  even  to  others  of  Slav  origin. 

Vladislav  was  driven  from  the  throne,  but  he  would 
not   renounce   his   claims   nor  surrender   to   Russia  the 


80  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

western  provinces  which  were  occupied  by  Poland.  Only 
in  1634,  after  two  long  campaigns,  did  Vladislav 
abandon  his  "  rights  "  to  the  Russian  throne,  but  he. 
still  retained  Smolensk  and  some  other  towns.  Another 
war  broke  out  in  1654,  and  continued,  interrupted 
by  an  armistice,  until  1667.  It  left  the  city  of 
Smolensk  in  Russian  hands,  and  the  whole  of  the 
Ukrainian  territory  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Dnieper, 
together  with  Kiev,  while  Lithuania  remained  Polish. 
The  provisional  treaty,  which  was  concluded  in  1667 
for  a  term  of  thirteen  years,  was  confirmed  in  1686  ; 
Russia  thereupon  signed  a  "  perpetual  peace  "  with 
Poland,  and  entered  the  league  of  Poland,  Austria, 
and  Venice  against  Turkey. 

The  war  with  Sweden  for  the  recovery  of  Novgorod 
commenced  immediately  after  the  advent  of  the  first 
Romanov.  At  the  end  of  four  years,  in  161 7,  Russia 
recovered  the  city  of  Novgorod,  but  the  Swedes  retained 
a  considerable  portion  of  the  territory  of  Novgorod 
and  the  Baltic  shore.  Forty  years  later  a  fresh  war 
with  Sweden  enabled  Russia  to  occupy  a  good  part 
of  Livonia,  together  with  Diinabourg  (Dvinsk)  and 
Dorpat  (Youriev)  ;  but  complications  in  the  Ukraine 
forced  her  to  make  peace  in  1661  and  to  restore 
her    conquests. 

Finally,  Sweden  remained  mistress  of  the  whole  of 
the  Baltic  shore,  whence  she  could  constantly  menace 
Russia  and  cut  off  all  direct  communication  with 
Western   Europe. 

Thus  the  road  to  the  sea  undertaken  by  Ivan  the 
Terrible  was  not  completed  until  the  reign  of  Peter 
the  Great,  who  had  to  repeat  all  the  efforts  of  his 
predecessors. 

Ill 

The  war  between  Peter  the  Great  and  Charles  XII 
lasted  for  twenty-one  years.  On  the  Russian  side  a 
total  of  1,700,000  men  took  part  in  this  war.  Of 
these   120,000  perished,  and   500,000  were  discharged 


RUSSIA   IN  ARMS   AND   EUROPE  81 

on  account  of  sickness.  The  war  ended  in  1721  with 
the  final  triumph  of  Russia,  whose  territory  was 
increased  by  the  addition  of  Ingermanland,  Esthonia, 
Livonia,  and  a  small  portion  of  Finland,  the  whole 
covering    an   area    of     180,000    square    miles. 

The  true  value  of  this  conquest,  to  Russia,  resided 
not  in  the  territorial  aggrandizement  which  it  accom- 
plished, but  in  the  ports,  those  outlets  to  the  Baltic 
Sea,  on  which  her  whole  future  depended,  and  whose 
possession  assured  the  realization  of  many  other  plans. 

"  He  had  need  of  a  port  on  the  east  of  the 
Baltic  Sea  for  the  execution  of  alt  his  ideas"  said 
Voltaire  of  Peter  the  Great  in  his  History  of 
Charles   X/IJ 

The  most  important  of  these  ideas  was  to  open  a 
direct  and  rapid  means  of  communication  between 
Europe    and   Russia. 

From  the  economic  point  of  view,  this  result  was 
attained  by  the  conquest  of  Riga  and  the  "  construc- 
tion "  of  Petersburg  (in  1703).  After  creating  the 
port  of  Petersburg,  Peter  concentrated  the  foreign  trade 
of  the  country  there,  to  the  detriment  of  Archangel, 
which  toward  the  end  of  his  reign  fell  into  a  state 
of   decadence. 

Between  1 7  1 7  and  1 7 1 9  the  value  of  the  annual 
import  trade  of  Archangel  was  2,344,000  roubles,  and 
that  of  Petersburg  only  269  roubles.  In  1726  the 
imports  of  Archangel  had  fallen  to  285,000  roubles, 
while  those  of  Petersburg  had  risen  to  2,403,000. 

As  for  Riga,  Narva,  and  Reval,  Russia  had  had 
commercial  relations  with  these  ports  before  the  Russo- 
Swedish  war  of  1700-21,  which  certainly  increased 
her  chances  of  conquering  the  littoral,  as  these  relations 
had  resulted  in  a  wave  of  "  Russophilia  "  among  the 
influential  representatives  of  the  wealthy  bourgeoisie 
of   RigaK  and   even    the  Livonian   nobility. 

The  victory  of  Russia  enormously  affected  inter- 
national relations  with  that  country.     Sweden  was  then 

1  Book  I. 
6 


82  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

one  of  the  most  powerful  States  of  Europe,  and  her 
conqueror  could  not  fail  to  acquire  a  great  prestige. 
Possibly  Voltaire  exaggerated  in  saying  of  Russia  that 
"  this  immense  country  was  hardly  known  in  Europe 
before  the  Tsar  Peter."  But  it  is  true  that  under 
Peter  "  the  Muscovite  State,  for  the  first  time,  entered, 
as  an  active  and  inseparable  member,  the  family  of 
the  European  Powers,  and  played  its  part  in  inter- 
national relations."  r  It  mingled  in  them  even  during 
Peter's  campaigns,  because  "  with  his  principal  enemies 
Peter  fought  in  another  manner  to  that  of  his  pre- 
decessors ;  he  waged  war  by  means  of  coalitions  and 
alliances." 

As  a  mark  of  the  great  development  of  Russo- 
European  relations,  we  may  note  the  appearance  in 
Europe  of  Russian  consular  agents.  On  the  15th  of 
March,  1  7  1  5,  Jean  Lefort  was  appointed  Russian  agent 
in  Paris  by  Peter  the  Great,  with  the  title  of 
"  Commercial  Councillor  "  ;  and  his  brother  Amedee 
Lefort  was  appointed  "  Commercial  Consul,"  also  in 
Paris.  In  the  deed  of  appointment  it  is  stated  that 
"  the  good  order  of  trade  and  the  necessity  of  fore- 
seeing all  difficulties  require  that  Russia  shall  have 
in  the  ports  and  other  localities  of  the  kingdom  of 
France,  where  our  subjects,  merchants  or  others,  may 
exercise  their  trade,  a  reliable  person  having  experience 
of  trade,  who  might  in  such  difficulties  as  arise,  and  in 
all  other  cases,  be  of  assistance  to  our  traders." 

Consuls  and  commercial  agents  were  next  appointed 
at  Spa,  Antwerp,  Breslau,  Vienna,  Liege,  Bordeaux,  and 
Cadiz. 

The  war  with  Sweden  brought  Peter  into  contact 
with  the  German  States.  "  Unhappily,  amid  his  allies 
he  numbered  Brandenburg  and  Hanover,  whose  Elector 
became,  at  this  very  moment,  King  of  England^  and 
a  new  passion  seized  upon  Peter  :  the  desire  to 
intervene  in  German  affairs.      He  dispersed  his  nieces 

1  Klutshevsky,  The  Course  of  Russian  History,  Part  iv.  p.  66,  Moscow, 
1910. 


RUSSIA  IN  ARMS   AND   EUROPE  83 

in  many  obscure  corners  of  German  territory  ;  he 
married  one  to  the  Duke  of  Courland,  another  to  the 
Duke  of  Mecklenburg-Schwerin  ;  Peter  was  thus  drawn 
into  the  petty  court  intrigues  and  participated  in  the 
petty  dynastic  interests  of  the  enormous  feudal  spider's 
web    which    enveloped    the    great    cultivated    nation."  » 

I  insist  on  these  facts  because  they  had  the  effect 
of  bringing  German  influence  to  bear  on  the  highest 
governing  circles  in  Russia.  Some  years  after  the 
death  of  Peter  this  influence  placed  a  German  Duchess 
on  the  throne.  It  had  other  consequences  also,  of 
which  I   shall   speak  further  on. 

The  war  with  Sweden,  which  altered  the  international 
situation  of  Russia,  at  the  same  time  left  its  mark 
on  her  internal  politics.  All  the  historians  of  Peter 
the  Great's  reforms  are  agreed  on  this  point.  Professor 
V.  Klutshevsky  even  asserts  that  "  the  war  was  the 
most  important  of  those  factors  to  which  the  reforms 
of  Peter  the  Great  owe  their  character." 

Having  entered  upon  a  desperate  conflict  with  a 
truly  European  Power,  Russia  could  only  fight  that 
Power  with  the  same  European  weapons.  This 
necessity  was  Russia's  great  motive  power.  By 
'  weapons  "  we  do  not  mean  simply  the  instruments 
of  military  action  :  men  and  material.  These  it  was 
not  difficult  to  procure,  and  Peter  succeeded  in 
procuring  them  in  a  manner  more  or  less  satisfactory, 
with  the  assistance  of  his  foreign  councillors  ;  he 
reorganized  the  land  army  and  created  a  fleet,  the 
germ  of  which  was  an  old  English  canoe,  found  by 
Peter  among  the  objects  of  all  kinds  which  attracted 
his  childlike  curiosity.  But  the  question  was  not 
merely  one  of  armaments  ;  the  entire  fabric  of  Russian 
life  was  to  be  reconstructed.  The  military  failures, 
which  were  almost  uninterrupted  during  the  first  eight 
years  of  the  war,  were  extremely  useful  in  this  connec- 
tion, as  they  showed  Peter  that  he  would  have  to  go 
to    school   with   his    conqueror.      And   he   himself   was 

1  Klutshevsky,  op.  cit.  p.  75. 


84  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

fond  of  saying  that  he  had  spent  "  three  scholastic 
periods  "  in  this  school  (the  duration  of  studies  being, 
in  those  days,  seven  years). 

History  has  preserved  for  us  the  words  spoken  by 
Peter  at  the  banquet  which  followed  the  victory  of 
Poltava  (July  8,  1709),  to  which  he  invited  the  Swedish 
generals    who    had    been    taken    prisoner. 

"  To  the  health,"  he  said,  "  of  my  masters  in  the 
art  of  war  !  "  Rehnskold  asked  him  who  those  were 
whom  he  honoured  by  so  fine  a  title.  "  You,  the 
Swedish  generals,"  was  the  Tsar's  reply. 

It  was  indeed  a  fact  that  Peter's  government  had 
taken  Sweden  as  its  model.  We  shall  presently  see 
that  it  more  than  once  endeavoured  to  copy  Sweden. 

IV 

The  war  with  Sweden,  the  principal  source  of  the 
internal  reforms  introduced  by  Peter,  had  a  very  un- 
favourable influence  on  the  appearance  and  develop- 
ment of  these  reforms. 

"  The  work  of  reform  went  on  amid  the  tumult  and 
confusion  which  habitually  accompany  a  war.  The 
necessities  and  embarrassments  continually  provoked  by 
military  action  forced  Peter  to  hurry  himself.  Pressed 
by  circumstances,  the  work  of  reform  assumed  a  feverish 
pace,  and  was  effected  with  unnatural  precipitation. 
Amid  the  anxieties  of  the  war  Peter  had  no  time  to 
pull  up,  to  discuss  his  measures  quietly,  to  deliberate 
over  them  at  leisure,  to  determine  on  their  execution, 
and  to  allow  them  to  ripen  naturally.  He  demanded 
rapid  performance  and  immediate  results.  .  .  .  Peter 
relied  only  on  the  power  of  authority  ;  he  did  not 
attempt  to  win  men's  minds.  Governing  the  State  from 
a  campaigning-carriage  or  a  posting-house,  he  could 
perceive  nothing  but  the  matter  in  hand;  he  did  not 
think  of  the  human  element,  and,  trusting  to  the  power 
of  authority,  he  reckoned  too  little  with  the  power  of 
the  passive  masses  .  .  .  amid  which  the  structure  of 
his  novelties  encountered  but  insecure  and  shifting  foun- 


RUSSIA  IN  ARMS  AND   EUROPE  85 

dations.  His  reforms  fell  like  a  waterspout  on  the 
people,  alarming  every  one  and  remaining  an  enigma 
to  all." 

So  spoke  one  of  those  who  knew  Peter  best,  and 
who  at  the  same  time  was  one  of  his  fervent  admirers. 
The  people  did  not  comprehend  the  tendency  or  the 
bearing  of  all  the  changes  which  were  imposed  upon 
it,  and  had  no  time  for  reflection.  Throughout  almost 
the  whole  of  Peter's  reign  Russia  was  fighting  a  very, 
onerous  war.  The  continual  levies  of  men  and  the 
uninterrupted  increase  of  taxes  presented  only  the  worse 
side  of  Peter's  work  to  the  people.  And  this  was  all 
the  people  could  see.  Hence  its  hatred  for  the  Tsar  ; 
hence  the  legends  which  spread  through  the  Empire, 
representing  the  innovator  as  the  enemy  of  his  own 
subjects,  as  a  "  foreigner,"  an  impostor,  and  even  as 
the  Antichrist. 

Peter's  internal  policy,  under  the  spur  of  war,  thus 
assumed  the  aspect  of  a  catastrophe  and  a  revolution. 
Now,  although  the  people  will  often  gladly  accept  a 
revolution  which  is  its  own  work,  it  usually  refuses  to 
approve  of  one  coming  "  from  above."  The  conjunc- 
tures in  which  Peter  operated,  his  system  of  acting 
by  violence — manu  milltari — aggravated  the  popular  dis- 
content. When  the  Tsar  died  the  public  opinion  was 
that  he  could  not  have  lived  longer  because  "  the  people 
had  cursed  him." 


CHAPTER   III 

I.  The  war  of  1812  and  the  Russo-Swedish  War.  II.  The  causes  of 
the  war  against  Napoleon— Economic  relations  between  Russia 
and  England— The  "Continental  Blockade"  and  its  effects  on 
Russian  economy.  III.  Two  periods  of  the  war  of  1812— Official 
patriotism  and  popular  patriotism.  IV.  The  Holy  Alliance 
and  Legitimism— The  Russian  reaction.  V.  The  effects  of  the 
war  on  the  people  and  the  "  intellectuals"— The  Decembrists. 
VI.  The  effects  of  the  war  in  Poland. 

I 

The  war  designed  to  acquire  the  "  window  opening  upon 
Europe  "  was  national  as  regards  its  general  and  remote 
results,  because  it  promised  a  whole  country  the  possi- 
bility of  free  development  and  of  maintaining  relations 
with  other  more  civilized  nations.  But  it  was  not 
national  in  the  sense  that  it  was  understood  and  sanc- 
tioned by  the  people,  for  it  was  the  Government  which 
decided  upon  the  war  and  brought  matters  to  a  head, 
despite  the  opposition  of  the  people. 

The  war  of  1 8 1 2  was  very  different  :  it  may  be 
regarded  as  the  first  really  national  and  popular  war 
undertaken  by  Russia.  But  it  did  not  immediately 
become  so. 

II 

At  the  outset  Russia's  conflict  with  Napoleon  was 
powerless  to  rouse  the  people,  because  it  resulted  from 
problems  of  European  significance,  rather  than  the 
national  interests  of  Russia.  Its  first  cause,  as  we 
know,   was   the   rivalry   between   France   and    England. 

At  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  and  the  beginning  of 
the  nineteenth  century  Russia  was  maintaining  highly 
developed  economic  relations  with  England.  She  sent 
her  agricultural   products  thither  and  received   in  ex- 

86 


RUSSIA   IN   ARMS   AND  EUROPE  87 

change  threads  and  yarns,  which  she  wove  into  cloth. 
44  England  furnished  us  with  the  products  of  her  manu- 
factures and  her  colonies  in  exchange  for  the  raw 
products  of  our  soil,"  says  a  contemporary  (Fone- 
Vizine).  "This  trade  opened  up  the  only  routes  by 
which  Russia  received  all  that  was  necessary  to  her. 
The  nobility  made  certain  of  drawing  the  revenues 
of  its  estates  by  exporting  oversea  wheat,  timber  for 
shipbuilding  and  for  masts  and  spars,  tallow,  hemp, 
flax,  etc."  The  Russian  export  traders  also  had  close 
relations  with  England  ;  so  that  two  highly  influential 
sections  of  Russian  society  were  economically  inclined 
to  be  Anglophile.  This  was  well  understood  in  France, 
and  in  1803  the  French  Ambassador  in  Petersburg 
wrote  to  his  Government  that  Russia  was  too  closely 
attached  to  England  by  her  trade  to  be  particularly 
desirous  of  maintaining  peace  with  France. 

Moreover,  the  majority  of  the  greater  nobles  and  of  the 
governing  classes  hated  France  as  a  revolutionary  country. 

An  alliance  of  Russia  and  England  against  France 
was  thus  inevitable.  It  is  true  that  Alexander  I  was 
restrained  by  the  fear  of  Napoleon's  bayonets,  and  was 
even  impelled  to  effect  momentary  reconciliations  with 
France,  but  these  only  emphasized  the  solidity  of  the 
Anglo-Russian  friendship  and  the  fragility  of  the 
Franco-Russian  ties.  Particularly  was  this  the  case 
after  the  Peace  of  Tilsit  (1807),  which  brought  Russia 
into  the  orbit  of  the  French  economic  policy,  by  associ- 
ating her  with  the  Continental  Blockade  which  was 
directed  against  England.  The  Treaty  of  Tilsit  was 
signed  in  July  1807,  but  by  October  of  the  same 
year  the  French  Ambassador  to  Russia,  Savary,  stated 
that  the  closing  of  Russian  ports  to  English  vessels 
was  causing  great  dissatisfaction  to  the  Russian  com- 
mercial classes,  as  their  exports  were  threatened,  and 
also  to  the  buyers  of  English  produce.  In  vain  did 
Savary  endeavour  to  raise  the  exchange  value  of  the 
rouble,  which  had  fallen  upon  the  interruption  of  rela- 
tions with  England,  spreading  the  rumour  in  Petersburg 


88  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

that  France  was  proposing  to  buy  twenty  million  francs' 
worth  of  Russian  merchandise  ;  this  promise  offered  only 
a  very  meagre  compensation  for  the  great  losses  incurred. 

It  is  true  that  although  agriculture  suffered  by  the 
Continental  Blockade,  certain  industries  gained  greatly 
thereby,  owing  to  the  elimination  of  English  competi- 
tion. But  the  middle-class  manufacturers  and  indus- 
trialized nobles  who  were  benefited  by  the  blockade 
were  only  a  small  minority,  and  had  no  say  in  matters 
of  foreign  policy. 

Two  years  after  the  Peace  of  Tilsit  the  blockade 
was  in  reality  broken  by  Russia,  as  she  authorized 
the  importation  of  English  merchandise  under  the 
American  flag.  The  rupture  with  France,  which  had 
become  inevitable,  was  hastened  by  other  causes  of  a 
political  and  even  of  a  personal  nature.  In  1812  the 
"  patriotic  war  "  commenced  and  the  Russian  Army 
crossed  the  Niemen. 

Ill 

We  must  distinguish  two  periods  in  this  war.  The 
first  was  the  period  of  official  and  superficial  patriotism, 
of  thoughtless  boasting,  of  pompous  proclamations  which 
denied  the  courage  of  the  French  Army.  It  ended, 
as  might  have  been  expected,  in  a  series  of  Russian 
defeats   and  the  occupation  of  Moscow. 

The  Government  and  the  nobility  were  overwhelmed. 
Alexander  I  hid  himself  from  the  people  in  his  palace  ; 
and  his  sister,  the  Grand  Duchess  Yekaterina  Pavlovna, 
wrote  to  him  uncompromisingly  that  "  he  must  very 
well  understand  what  happens  in  a  country  whose  ruler 
is  despised."  Many  of  the  nobles  were  afraid  at  once 
of  Napoleon  and  of  their  own  peasants,  whom  they  had 
oppressed,  and  who  might  have  found,  in  this  war,  an 
opportunity  to  revolt. 

But  it  was  precisely  the  masses  of  the  people,  the 
peasants,  who  in  1 8 1 2  represented  the  true  patriotism, 
together  with  an  enlightened  minority  of  nobles,  from 
which  issued,  at  a  later  date,  the  first  Russian  Con- 
stitutionalists. 


RUSSIA   IN   ARMS   AND   EUROPE  89 

"  Salvation  came  from  below,  from  this  mass  of 
serfs,  who  commenced,  in  a  spirit  of  abnegation,  a 
popular  war.  Stein  (the  Prussian  Minister)  was 
perfectly  right  when  he  said  (in  a  letter  to  Gneisenau) 
that  '  the  people  has  reached  the  supreme  degree  of 
fury,  and  the  Emperor  could  not  conclude  peace — at 
least,  if  he  had  any  regard  for  his  personal  safety.' 
The  popular  war  was  the  natural  consequence  of  the 
gloomy  distrust  which  the  people  entertained  in  respect 
of  authority.  .  .  .  The  fundamental,  principal,  and 
almost  the  only  cause  of  the  victory  of  1 8  1 2  was  the 
coming  into  action  of  the  popular  masses  against  the 
armies  of  Napoleon."  1 

The  memoirs  relating  to  the  war  of  18 12  leave  us 
convinced  that  it  was  not  the  Government  which,  as 
in  the  war  with  Charles  XII,  displayed  the  greatest 
vigour  and  activity  ;  it  was  the  people  which,  inter- 
vening like  a  force  of  nature,  saved  Russia  from  the 
Napoleonic  invasion. 

"  All  the  orders  and  all  the  efforts  of  the  Govern- 
ment would  not  have  sufficed  to  expel  the  Gauls  and 
the  dozen  other  peoples  who  invaded  Russia  with  them, 
had  the  people  remained  in  its  old  condition  of  torpor," 
said  a  witness  of  events,  the  Decembrist  Yakushkin. 
"  It  was  not  upon  the  order  of  the  authorities  that  the 
inhabitants  of  the  country  withdrew  into  the  forests 
and  marshes  on  the  arrival  of  the  French,  surrendering 
their  homes  to  be  burned.  It  was  not  upon  the  order 
of  the  authorities  that  the  whole  population  of  Moscow 
left  the  ancient  capital  with  the  army.  To  the  right 
and  the  left,  along  the  Riazan  road,  the  fields  were 
covered  by  a  many-coloured  host,  and  I  can  still 
remember,  to-day,  the  words  of  a  soldier  who  was 
marching  beside  me,  '  Thanks  to  God,  all  Russia  is  on 
the  march.  !  '  " 

This  Russia  which  was  '•'  on  the  march  "  saved  her- 
self,   despite    the    collapse   of    her    Government.      And 

1  N.    Rojkov,   The   Year  1812   and    its  Influence    on    Contemporary 
Russian  Society  {Sovremanny  Mir,  191 2,  vii.,  Petersburg). 


90  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

it  was  only  when  the  war  of  legitimate  defence  Was 
over,  and  the  enemy  driven  from  the  national  soil,  that 
the  Government  resumed  the  direction  of  the  war, 
passing  to  the  offensive  and  pursuing  the  French  armies 
across  Europe,  in  company  with  two  professional 
masters  of  international  spoliation  :  the  Prussian  and 
Austrian  monarchies. 

IV 

The  triumph  of  Alexander  I  over  Napoleon  enabled 
him,  in  1 8 1 5,  to  form,  with  his  two  autocratic  allies, 
the  Holy  Alliance,  which  was  perfectly  natural,  for 
between  the  three  Conservative  monarchies — Russian, 
Austrian,  and  Prussian — there  existed  a  reciprocal 
attraction.  But  they  were  united  only  in  their  hatred 
of  France  and  of  Napoleon,  himself  a  despot,  but  "the 
offspring  of  the  Revolution."  By  their  victory  over 
him  it  seemed  to  them  that  they  had  overcome  the 
revolutionary  movement.  In  the  dogma  of  legitimacy, 
the  defence  of  which  constituted  the  essential  point 
of  the  policy  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  was  expressed  not 
merely  the  antipathy  of  the  "'  hereditary  '  monarchs 
for  a  "  parvenu,"  but  also  the  claim  to  inviolability 
put  forward  by  autocratic  power  regularly  transmitted. 

In  order  to  be  regarded  as  inviolable,  the  authority 
of  the  monarch  must  prevail  by  supernatural  virtue. 
The  fortunate  issue  of  the  war  against  Napoleon,  to 
which  Alexander  I  personally  contributed  so  little,  im- 
pelled him  towards  mysticism.  Unwilling  to  refer  the 
success  of  his  armies  to  the  efforts  and  sacrifices  of 
the  people,  he  attributed  it  to  Divine  intervention.  "  In 
this  great  task,  which  was  above  human  strength,  we 
recognize  only  the  Providence  of  God,"  he  said  in 
his  manifesto.  He  expressed  the  same  idea  in  a  private 
conversation  held  at  Vilna,  when  he  stated  that  "  the 
Lord  Jesus  alone  is  the  true  conqueror,  and  has 
liberated  the  country  from  the  invasion  of  ferocious 
enemies." 

Alexander    never    doubted    that    it    was    logical    that 


RUSSIA  IN   ARMS   AND   EUROPE  91 

the  Divine  Providence  and  the  will  of  Jesus  should 
select  the  Russian  Tsar  as  their  instrument  upon  earth. 
If  he  appeared  fairly  modest  in  his  conversations  with 
Mme.  de  Stael — "  I  am,"  he  told  her,  "  merely  a  happy 
accident  in  the  life  of  the  peoples  " — he  spoke  more 
frankly  to  Baronne  de  Kriidner,  assuring  her  of  his 
conviction  that  his  acts  were  in  perfect  harmony  with 
the  will  of  God. 

This  doctrine  bore  disastrous  fruit  in  the  foreign 
policy  of  Russia,  as  well  as  in  her  domestic  policy. 
The  Holy  Alliance  began  its  work  in  defence  of 
legitimacy  by  the  restoration  of  the  royal  power  in 
France,  where  two  bloody  revolutions  were  necessary 
to  repair  its  error. 

From  1 8 1  5  onwards  the  Russian  autocracy  became 
a  sort  of  "  international  policeman,"  and  acted  accord- 
ingly. It  was  thus  led  into  grievous  errors,  the  chief 
of  which  was  committed  in  1848,  when  the  successor 
of  Alexander  I,  in  the  name  of  order  and  legitimacy, 
placed  his  armies  at  the  service  of  the  Austrian 
monarchy,  in  order  to  crush  the  Hungarian  revolu- 
tion, saving  Austria  from  inevitable  ruin  and  irreme- 
diably alienating  from  Russia  the  best  elements  of 
Hungarian  society.  The  results  of  this  policy  are 
perceptible  even  to-day. 

As  for  the  domestic  life  of  Russia,  the  war  of  1 8 1 2 
inoculated  it  with  two  species  of  germs.  On  its  subjects 
the  autocracy,  from  1  8  1  5  onwards,  imposed  the  system 
of  which  it  was  the  champion  abroad  ;  and  it  was  they 
who  suffered  the  worst  effects  of  this  system.  An  era 
of  the  gloomiest  reaction  was  inaugurated,  and,  accord- 
ing to  the  expression  of  one  of  the  men  most  prominent 
at  this  period,  the  people  were  treated  "  like  a  flock 
of  sheep,"  who  had  to  be  "  sufficiently  nimble  "  to 
make  it  ppssible  to  "  lead  "  them  towards  the  goal  of 
their  enemies.  This  oppression,  which  was  steeped  in 
mysticism,  had  certain  points  of  likeness  to  the  Holy 
Inquisition  :  for  instance,  in  the  zeal  of  the  monks,  its 
most  notable  and  its  best-qualified  instruments. 


92  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 


V 

On  the  masses  of  the  people  and  the  more 
enlightened  minds  of  the  country,  the  war  of  1812 
had  quite  another  effect. 

The  Decembrist,  Yakushkin,  whose  Memoirs  I  have 
already  cited,  states  that  it  "  awakened  the  Russian 
people  to  life,  and  formed  an  important  period  of  its 
political  existence."  Another  Decembrist,  A.  Bestoujev, 
in  his  letter  to  Alexander  I,  wrote  that  "  Napoleon 
having  invaded  Russia,  the  Russian  people,  for  the  first 
time,  was  conscious  of  its  strength.  It  was  precisely 
at  this  moment  that  the  desire  for  independence  arose 
in  every  heart  ;  political  independence  first  (that  is, 
external  independence),  and  then  popular.  This  was 
the  birth  of  Liberal  aspirations  in  Russia."  Bestoujev 
also  explains,  in  a  fashion  even  more  characteristic, 
the  state  of  mind  prevalent  in  Russia  after  the  war  : — 

'•'  The  soldiers  said  :  '  We  have  spilt  our  blood,  and 
they  make  us  sweat  in  oar  lords'  fields  ;  we  have 
freed  our  country  from  the  tyrant,  and  we  are  tyrannized 
over  by  our  masters.'  " 

As  a  result  of  the  war,  therefore,  the  protest  against 
serfdom  became  keener  and  keener  amid  the  rural 
population  ;  and  after  the  lapse  of  a  few  years  a  series 
of  rural  disturbances  commenced  which  continued,  with 
intervals,  until   the  abolition  of  serfdom    (in    1861). 

The  influence  of  the  war  of  1  8 1 2  caused  an  even  more 
direct  and  remarkable  upheaval  in  the  intellectual  world. 

At  first  this  upheaval  took  the  form  of  a  general 
awakening  of  the  spirit  of  citizenship  among  the  officers, 
who  then  formed  a  sort  of  intellectual  elite.  A  con- 
temporary states  that  the  campaigns  of  18 12- 14 
"exalted  the  soul  of  our  army  in  an  extraordinary 
fashion,  especially  in  the  case  of  the  young  officers. 
.  .  .  The  majority  of  the  officers  of  the  Guard  and 
the  Staff  returned  to  Petersburg  in  1 8 1 5  with  a  con- 
sciousness of  their  dignity  and  full  of  a  sublime  love 
for  their  native  country." 


RUSSIA  IN  ARMS  AND   EUROPE  93 

Moreover,  their  sojourn  in  foreign  countries  had  made 
an  immediate  impression  on  them. 

"  During  their  marches  across  Germany  and  France 
our  young  officers  learned  to  understand  European  civi- 
lization, which  impressed  them  all  the  more  in  that 
they  were  able  to  compare  it  with  what  they  beheld 
at  every  step  in  their  own  country  :  the  enslavement 
of  the  great  majority  of  Russians,  the  cruelty  of  chiefs 
toward  their  subordinates,  the  abuses  of  power  of  every 
kind,  the  arbitrary  rule  which  everywhere  made  its 
rigour  felt.  All  this  revolted  the  educated  Russians  and 
hurt  their  patriotism."  l 

M.  Emile  Haumant,  in  his  Culture  frangaise  en 
Russle,  cites  a  number  of  such  observers  : — 

"  Many  of  us,"  writes  one  of  the  officers  who  took 
part  in  the  war,  "  became  acquainted  with  German 
officers  who  were  members  of  the  Tugendbund,  and 
afterwards  with  some  of  the  French  Liberals.  .  .  . 
In  conversing  with  them  we  made  our  own,  although 
we  did  not  realize  this,  their  manner  of  thinking  and 
their  love  of  representative  institutions,  and  we  blushed 
for  our  own  country,  humiliated  by  tyranny."  The 
more  they  saw  of  the  countries  moulded  by  French 
institutions,  the  more  the  spectacle  of  their  relative 
prosperity  impressed  the  Russians.  A  mere  rebellion 
of  the  lower  classes — a  jacquerie  pure  and  simple — 
could  never  have  created  such  wealth  ;  so  that  there 
were  evidently  beneficent  revolutions.  On  the  other 
hand,  events  went  to  prove  that  the  stability  of  thrones, 
for  which  they  were  fighting,  was  a  very  uncertain 
dogma.  "  We  saw  on  every  side  thrones  restored  and 
overthrown  ...  so  that  our  minds  became  accustomed 
to  revolutions,  their  possibility,  and  the  profit  to  be 
derived  from  them,"  and  this  all  the  more  rapidly 
because,  in  the  general  chaos,  "  the  majority  of  the 
revolutionary  institutions  were  preserved,  and,  there- 
fore, were  recognized  as  good."  "  Finally,"  says  M. 
Haumant,  "  the  conquerors  perceived  that  with  all  their 
glory  they  were  not  so  well  off  as  the  conquered."  2 
1  Rojkov,  op.  cit.  2  Emile  Haumant,  op.  cit.  pp.  320-21. 


94  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

The  Russian  officers  profited  by  their  stay  in  France 
to  become  acquainted  with  French  ideas  and  with  the 
political  literature  of  France.  While  the  other  Allies 
mostly  frequented  the  Royalist  salons,  the  Russians 
ventured  to  enter  into  close  relations  with  the  revolu- 
tionaries, and  even  the  "  suspects,"  and  to  study  the 
formation  and  the  statutes  of  the  secret  political 
societies.  Prompt  to  utilize  what  they  had  lately- 
learned,  they  began  to  teach  their  soldiers,  applying 
to  the  process  the  Lancastrian  method.  According  to 
several  observers,  "  the  blows  which  were  constantly 
given  in  the  other  Allied  armies  were  banished  from 
the  Russian  corps  stationed  in  France." 

So  it  was  with  new  habits,  a  new  spirit,  and  a 
new  state  of  mind  that  all  this  military  youth  returned 
to  Russia.  But  there  disillusion  awaited  it.  An  oppres- 
sive reactionary  regime  barred  the  way  to  generous 
aspirations  and  schemes  of  liberation.  A  clash  was 
inevitable  ;  it  came  ten  years  later,  on  the  14th  of 
December,  1825  ;  some  officers  who  had  taken  part 
in  the  campaigns  of  18 12- 14  attempted  a  military 
insurrection  with  a  view  to  establishing  a  Constitution. 
So  it  was  that  the  war  of  1812  gave  rise  to  a 
"  revolution  from  below,"  just  as  the  struggle  with 
Charles  XII  had  caused  a  "  revolution  from  above." 
Peter  I  had  imposed  his  authority,  despite  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  people.  The  Decembrists  took  up  arms  for 
the  liberation  of  the  people  from  autocratic  authority. 
One  of  these  Decembrists,  the  poet  Lorer,  has  summed 
up  the  meaning  of  the  war  of  1812  in  some  verses, 
which  put  into  the  mouth  of  Napoleon  the  following 
words :  — 

.  .  .  Russia  is  my  rival, 

But  Fate  my  conqueror.  .  .  . 

I  followed  not  the  steps  of  Batou-Khan, 

I  fought  not  without  reason  ;  was  not  moved 

By  the  vanity  of  glory  .  .  . 

I  have  seen  Moscow's  ashes,  but  am  not 

Another  Erostrates.  .  .  . 

...  I  willed,  with  iron  hand, 

Sudden  to  seize  the  centuries'  coming  void  ; 


RUSSIA   IN   ARMS   AND   EUROPE  95 

Those  centuries  I  summoned  ere  the  hour, 
To  snap  the  rusty  chain  of  prejudice, 
And  urge  the  idle  giant  upward  still 
Toward  a  higher  goal  of  life.1 

The  "  idle  giant,"  Russia,  was  rudely  shaken  by 
the  war  upon  Napoleon,  but  not  sufficiently  so  to  snap 
the  rusty  chain  of  the  ancien  regime.  The  rising  of 
the  Decembrists  was  stifled  by  the  Government,  and  it 
was  only  thirty  years  later,  after  a  fresh  international 
upheaval,  after  the  Crimean  War,  that  the  fetters  of 
Russia  began  to  fall  off  her. 

VI 

But  we  must  speak  a  few  words  as  to  Napoleon's 
relations  with   Poland. 

While  the  great  Revolution  was  nearing  accomplish- 
ment— while  in  France  the  old  order  was  falling  in 
ruins— Poland,  in  1795,  was  finally  destroyed,  and 
shared  between  the  three  neighbour  monarchies — Russia, 
Austria,  and  Prussia. 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  interests  of  Russia  (that 
is,  of  the  whole  Russian  people,  and  not  only  of  the 
bureaucracy  and  the  ruling  circles)  it  was  a  great  mis- 
take to  take  a  hand  in  the  murder  and  dismemberment 
of  her  neighbour.  Even  to-day  this  is  very  evident. 
Russia  has  deprived  herself  of  a  barrier  between  herself 
and  the  Germanic  States,  and  is  in  immediate  contact 
with  Germany  and  Austria.  The  dismemberment  of 
their  little  kingdom,  which  would  have  been  impos- 
sible without  the  participation  of  Russia,  filled  the  Poles 
with  hatred  of  the  Empire.  Their  enslavement  became  a 
painful  wound  in  the  flank  of  the  Russian  Empire,  which 
on  two  occasions  bled  profusely,  in   1831   and  in   1863. 

The  violence  done  to  Poland  was  and  is  still  ex- 
ploited by  Russia's  rivals,  and  has  complicated  the 
external  situation  without  in  any  way  fortifying  it. 

Napoleon  I  understood  the  profit  to  be  derived  from 

1  Lorer,  Napoleon.     (See  the  collection,  The  War  of  1812  in  Russian 
Poetry,  p.  129,  Moscow,  1912.) 


96  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

Poland,  utilizing  her  as  one  of  the  levers  of  his  anti- 
Russian  policy  ;  all  the  more  easily  because,  before 
the  last  partition  of  Poland,  many  of  the  irreducible 
Polish  patriots  had  taken  refuge  in  France,  and  a 
mutual  sympathy  united  the  defenders  of  national  inde- 
pendence and  the  French  democracy.  Here  Napoleon 
had  a  means  of  action  at  his  disposal,  and  he  made  use 
of  it,  during  and  even  before  the  war  of  1806-7, 
posing  as  a  champion  of  the  Polish  claims.  But  he 
offered  the  Poles  a  mirage  only  ;  for  in  1807  he  did  not 
impose  on  Alexander,  as  a  condition,  sine  qua  non,  of 
peace,  the  restoration  of  Poland.  The  Treaty  of  Tilsit 
confined  itself  to  creating  a  Grand  Duchy  of  Warsaw, 
formed  out  of  Prussian  Poland,  and  given  as  booty  to 
the  Elector  of  Saxony. 

But,  thanks  to  this  symbol,  this  fiction  of  an  indepen- 
dent Polish  State,  Napoleon  was  able  to  retain  the 
sympathies  of  the  Poles,  for  whom  he  was  the  only 
friendly  monarch  in  Europe.  And  in  18 12  the  Polish 
Eagles  hovered  above  the  Franco-Russian  battlefields 
beside  the  standards  of  Napoleon. 

Napoleon's  Polophile  diplomacy  had  its  effect  upon 
Russian  politics,  for  Alexander  I  could  not  allow  the 
Poles  to  regard  France  as  their  liberator.  He  him- 
self said,  in  his  secret  instructions  to  Novossiltzev, 
who  was  charged  with  confidential  negotiations  with 
England  : — 

"  The  most  powerful  weapon  which  the  French  have 
employed  hitherto,  and  with  which  they  are  still 
threatening  all  other  States,  is  the  idea,  which  they  have 
managed  to  diffuse  abroad,  that  their  cause  is  the 
cause  of  the  liberty  and  happiness  of  the  nations. 
.  .  .  The  welfare  of  humanity,  the  true  interest  of  the 
legitimate  authorities,  and  the  success  of  the  under- 
taking meditated  by  the  two  Powers  (Russia  and 
England)  demand  that  these  shall  wrest  this  formidable 
weapon  from  the  hands  of  the  French,  and,  having  seized 
it,  use  it  against  the  latter. 

It    thus    appears    that    the    proposal    to    set    up    an 


RUSSIA   IN  ARMS  AND   EUROPE  97 

autonomous  Poland,  on  which  Alexander  so  insisted 
at  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  and  his  desire  to  create  a 
"  phantom  Poland,"  were  chiefly  due  to  the  necessity 
of  competing  with  France  and  Napoleon.1 

The  rebirth  of  the  Polish  State,  the  work  of  the 
French  Army,  and  accepted — we  know  not  if  it  was 
sincerely — by  Alexander  I,  was  accomplished  on  the 
1 5th  of  November  1 8 1 5,  by  the  granting  of  a  Con- 
stitution to  the  kingdom  of  Poland.  But  as  this  king- 
dom was  under  the  tutelage  of  Russia,  and  as  Russia 
herself  was  not  a  constitutional  country,  the  contra- 
diction between  this  semblance  of  constitutionalism  and 
the  Russian  autocracy  was  to  break  forth  anew  and 
engender  a  sanguinary  conflict  in  which  the  political 
individuality  of  Poland  disappeared  yet  once  again. 

The  confidence  of  Poland,  who  had  come  to  regard 
France — even  the  France  of  Napoleon — as  her  friend 
and  liberator,  was  yet  further  confirmed  by  a  series 
of  measures  taken  by  Napoleon  in  1807  and  1808, 
which    were   fruitful   of    results. 

Napoleon  effected  the  introduction  into  the  consti- 
tutional law  of  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Warsaw  of  an 
article  by  whose  terms  serfdom  was  abolished  and 
all  citizens  made  equal  before  the  law.  In  virtue  of 
this  principle,  a  decree  passed  about  the  end  of  1807 
authorized  the  peasants  freely  to  leave  their  masters. 
Unhappily,  the  serfs,  while  they  received  their  liberty, 
were  at  the  same  time  dispossessed  of  the  lands  on 
which  they  had  lived,  which  were  recognized  as  the 
property  of  their  seigneurs.  Thereupon  a  portion  of 
the  agricultural  population  rapidly  became  a  proletariat, 
which  was  quickly  invaded  by  pauperism.  But,  taking 
it  all  round,  the  abolition  of  serfdom  gave  a  great 
impulse  to  the  economic  and  social  development  of  the 
country  ;  it  was  the  ruin  of  the  feudal  system,  but 
profited    the    middle    classes    of   society. 

Another  very  important  measure  was  the  introduction 

'  See  the  Mtmoires  of  Talleyrand  (Paris,  1891,  vols.  ii.  and  iii.)  and 
the  Mimoircs  of  Prince  Metternich  (Paris,  1886,  vol.  ii.). 

7 


98  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

into  Poland  of  the  Code  Napoleon.  Concerning  the 
action  of  this  reform,  one  of  the  best  historians  of 
Polish  economy  remarks  : — 

"  The  widest  breach  in  the  civil  regime,  and  above 
all  in  the  property  system  as  it  existed  in  Poland, 
was  made  by  the  Code  Napoleon,  which  was  intro- 
duced into  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Warsaw  in  1808.  It 
implanted  the  juridical  forms  of  the  modern  bourgeois 
system  in  the  economy  of  a  naturally  feudal  system  of 
exploitation.  Incapable  by  itself  of  transforming  the 
means  of  production,  it  nevertheless  dealt  the  most 
damaging  blows  to  the  old  property  system,  and 
hastened  its  fall.  The  abolition  of  the  special  system 
affecting  leased  property  wrested  landed  property  from 
its  immobilized  condition  and  drew  it  into  the  current 
of   exchange."  l 

In  1809  and  18 12  the  Government  of  the  Grand 
Duchy  of  Warsaw  invited  foreign  manufacturers,  experts, 
and  artisans  to  settle  in  Poland.  They  were  granted 
various  privileges,  for  example,  exemption  from  military 
service,  taxes  on  landed  property,  customs  duties,  etc. 
In  its  "  kingdom  of  Poland  "  the  Russian  Govern- 
ment retained  this  policy,  and  between  18  16  and  1824 
it  issued  a  series  of  Imperial  ukases,  whose  object  was 
to  favour  industry  and  to  attract  foreign  capital  and 
capitalists. 

As  a  result  the  general  character  of  economic  and 
social  life  underwent  a  radical  change.  But  the  origins 
of  this  new  state  of  affairs  must  be  traced  back  to 
the  brief  existence  of  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Warsaw 
and  the  triumph  of  the  middle  classes,  when  '  the 
barriers  which  divided  them  from  the  nobility  were 
broken,"  and  when  they  were  enabled  to  seize  upon 
all  the  means  of  conquering  the  productive  forces  of  the 
country.  So  that  it  was  said  that  "  the  embourgeoise- 
ment  of  the  political  life  of  Poland  was  in  great  measure 
the  result  of  French  influence."  2 

1  Rosa  Luxembourg,  Industrial  Evolution  0/  Poland. 
1  L.  Janowicz,  A  Sketch  of  the  Evolution  of  Industry  in  the  Kingdom 
of  Poland  (Warsaw,  i9°7). 


CHAPTER    IV 

I.  The    Crimean    War— Its   origins.     II.  Causes   of  defeat— The  con- 
trast   between  the   old    Russia   and    the   new  Europe.      III.  The 
-tern  question — The  Slav  problem  and  the  Europeauization  of 
Russia. 

I 

From  1812  to  18  14,  Russia,  in  alliance  with  England, 
was  fighting  France.  Forty  years  later  the  two  Western 
States  were  allied  against  the  Russian  Empire. 

The  composition  of  this  alliance  enabled  the  enemy, 
in  1854,  to  represent  the  conflict  as  that  of  the  West 
against    the    East,    Europe    against    Asia. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  immediate  cause  of  the 
Crimean  War,  or  rather  its  immediate  pretext,  was 
the  possession  of  the  keys  of  the  church  of  Bethlehem; 
the  Orthodox  monks  and  their  Catholic  competitors 
disputed  the  right  of  possession.  So  that  the  struggle 
seemed  thus  to  be  between  Orthodoxy  and  Catholicism. 

In  reality  it  was  much  more  material  and  concrete. 
Once  again  it  proceeded  from  the  economic  relations 
existing    between   Russia   and    Great   Britain. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  as  we 
have  seen,  these  relations  were  very  close,  and  we  may 
even  say  that  Russia  and  Great  Britain  could  not  do 
without  one  another.  Toward  the  middle  of  the  century 
the  situation  underwent  a  change.  The  commercial 
ties  between  the  two  countries  suffered  a  general 
relaxation,  'due  at  first  to  the  condition  of  the  world- 
market,  and   then   to  the  economic   policy  of  Russia. 

England  obtained  from  Russia  chiefly  raw  materials 
and  cereals.     But  in  the  second  quarter  of  the  century 

90 


100  RUSSIA   AND  EUROPE 

the  European  market  offered  corn  at  moderate  prices 
and  in  fair  abundance.  England  was  therefore  enabled 
in  great  measure  to  dispense  with  the  importation  of 
Russian  corn.  As  for  Russia,  her  industry,  having 
experienced  the  elimination  of  competition  during  the 
short  period  of  the  Continental  Blockade,  was  beginning 
to  manifest  her  predilection  for  an  increasingly  definite 
protectionism.  English  merchandise  gradually  dis- 
appeared from  the  Russian  market,  and  about  1830- 
35  the  British  Press  was  complaining  that  while 
British  trade  with  other  foreign  States  was  more  or 
less  rapidly  increasing,  the  trade  with  Russia  remained 
at  the  same  level,  or  was  decreasing.  The  English 
especially  complained  that  Russia  was  seizing  upon  the 
Trans-Caucasian  regions  and  the  shores  of  the  Black 
Sea — Georgia  too,  and  Bessarabia  ;  and  she  was 
meditating  the  acquisition  of  Asia  Minor,  the  Bosphorus, 
and  the  Dardanelles  ;  that  is,  the  highway  by  which 
British  trade  penetrated   the   East. 

Moreover,  Nicolas  I  was  endeavouring  to  establish 
an  absolute  political  hegemony  over  Europe,  its 
character   being  reactionary. 

There  was  therefore  more  than  one  pretext  available 
for   an  Anglo-Russian   conflict. 

If  France  decided  to  take  part  in  this  conflict,  it 
was,  according  to  modern  historians,  "  not  because  of 
her  hostility  towards  Russia,  but  because  of  her  friend- 
ship for  England."  The  Russian  author  who  thus 
defines  the  motive  which  France  is  supposed  to  have 
obeyed  bases  his  opinion  on  arguments  of  a  material 
order.  He  observes  that  at  this  period  France  was 
not  a  competitor  of  England,  but  rather  a  collabo- 
rator ;  for  nearly  half  the  total  trade  of  England 
was  carried  in  French  vessels.1  "And,  similarly,  the 
East,  with  its  ports  and  its  trade  routes,  was  acquiring 
a  particular  interest  for  the  French  Government.  About 
the  same  moment  de  Lesseps  was  appealing  for  French 
capital  to  construct   the  Suez  canal,  and  Napoleon  III 

1  M.  Pokrovsky,  Russian  History,  vol.  v.  p.  34  (Moscow,  1914). 


RUSSIA   IN  ARMS   AND   EUROPE  101 

recalled  the  traditional  protectorate  exercised  by  the 
French  sovereigns  over  the  Catholic  inhabitants  of 
Turkey.  As  we  know,  it  was  the  intervention  of 
France  in  the  affairs  of  Palestine  which  provoked 
an  explicit  conflict  between  the  new  Emperor  of 
France  and  Nicolas  I.  The  keys  of  the  temple 
of  Bethlehem  opened  the  temple  of  the  God  of  War, 
which  had  been  closed  for  forty  years." 

II 

The  God  of  War,  so  favourable  to  Russia  during 
the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  deserted  her  in 
1854;    Russia  was   defeated. 

It  may  at  first  sight  appear  astonishing  that  so  great 
a  State  should  have  been  forced  to  declare  herself 
vanquished,  and  to  place  herself  at  the  mercy  of  her 
enemies,  because  of  a  defeat  suffered  at  Sebastopol  ; 
that  is,  at  one  remote  point  of  her  immense  territory. 
There  are  qualified  Russian  writers  who  assert  that 
Russia  could  and  should  have  continued  the  Crimean 
War,  and  that  she  would  have  had  a  good  chance  of 
emerging  victoriously.  Here,  for  instance,  is  the 
opinion  of  the  celebrated  Russian  historian,  S.  Soloviev, 
as  recorded  in  his  posthumous  notes  : — 

"  Peace  was  concluded  after  the  fall  of  Sebastopol, 
while  Sebastopol  was  playing  the  same  role  as  Moscow 
in  18 12.  At  this  very  moment  Russia  should  have 
declared  that  the  war  was  not  finished,  but  was  only 
beginning,  in  order  to  compel  the  Allies  to  renounce 
it.  .  .  .  Foreign  affairs  were  by  no  means  in  so 
desperate  a  condition  that  an  energetic  sovereign  could 
not  have  emerged  from  the  struggle  retaining  his 
dignity  and  some  essential  advantages.  In  the  interior 
of  the  country  there  was  no  exhaustion,  no  extreme 
distress.  The  new  sovereign,  whom  all  wished  to  love, 
because  he  was  new,  could  have  raised  enormous  forces 
by  appealing  to  the  love  and  patriotism  of  the  people. 
The  war  was  difficult  for  the  Allies  ;  they  ardently 
desired    its   termination.      Before    a   Russian   sovereign 


102  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

who  spoke  firmly,  asserting  his  intention  to  fight  until 
the  conclusion  of  an  honourable  peace,  they  would  have 
drawn    back." 

General  Kuropatkin  shares  this  opinion;  he  con- 
siders that  "  finding  inspiration  in  the  example  of 
Peter  I  and  Alexander  I,  we  should  have  continued 
the    war,     in    order    to     '  drive    the     enemy    into    the 

sea.'  " 

But  both  writers— the  scholar  and  the  professional 
soldier— have  themselves  represented  the  condition  of 
affairs  in  Russia  at  the  end  of  the  Crimean  War  under 
such  an  aspect  that  the  impossibility  of  continuing  the 
war  is  obvious  to  those  who  are  capable  of  objective 
judgment.  Soloviev  states  that  Alexander  II,  at  the 
moment  of  his  accession,  had  neither  the  breadth  of 
view,  nor  the  courage,  nor  the  initiative,  nor  the  energy 
necessary  for  the  continuation  of  the  struggle,  and  that 
among  those  who  surrounded  him  "  there  was  not  a 
single  man  endowed  with  intellectual  and  moral  power," 
"not  a  single  man  capable  of  lighting  the  darkness." 
As  for  General  Kuropatkin,  he  draws  the  following 
picture    of    Russia    before   and    during    the    war  :— 

"  The  movement  of  liberation  which  originated  in 
Russia  after  the  Napoleonic  wars',  which  penetrated 
even  the  ranks  of  the  army,  was  followed  (under 
Nicolas  I),  by  a  powerful  bureaucratic  pressure,  which 
weighed  heavily  on  all  manifestations  of  public  activity 
and  on  all  ranks  and  classes  of  society,  including  the 
military.  It  was  as  though  all  Russia  had  donned 
the  same  uniform,  close-buttoned  from  top  to  bottom, 
and  was  standing  motionless.  Russia  and  her  army 
could  only  say  :  '  I  obey  you,'  '  You  are  right,'  and 
'  All  goes  well.'  The  soldiers  were  cruelly  treated. 
Their  food  was  bad.  Thefts  of  all  kinds  were  habitual 
phenomena  in  the  army.  The  command  of  regiments 
was  given  to  landed  proprietors  who  had  squandered 
their  fortunes  in  order  that  they  might  make  them 
again.  The  Imperial  Guard  enjoyed  oppressive 
privileges.      Every    act    of    spontaneous    initiative    was 


RUSSIA  IN   ARMS  AND   EUROPE  103 

punished  by  law.  The  Press  was  timid  and  silent. 
Any  discussion  in  a  military  journal,  even  in  respect 
of  the  soldier's  clothing,  was  often  regarded  as  the 
sign  of  a  subversive  mind.  The  army,  therefore,  in  spite 
of  its  great  numbers,  was  backward  in  the  matter  of 
intellectual  force.  And  in  the  matter  of  material 
strength  we  were  equally  backward,  compared  with 
the  European  armies."  * 

General  Kuropatkin,  as  we  see,  attributes  the  sorry 
condition  of  the  Russian  Army  on  the  outbreak  of  the 
Crimean  War  to  the  general  regime  of  reaction  then 
prevailing.  So  it  was  not  the  Russian  Army  which 
was  conquered  at  Sebastopol  by  the  Allied  troops,  but 
rather,  and  especially,  the  social  and  political  system 
of  the  old  autocratic  Russia.  A  serf -owning  country 
could   not   hold   out    against   more  civilized   States. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  this  very  backwardness, 
which  was  responsible  for  Russia's  weakness,  and  which 
condemned  her  to  defeat,  was  represented,  by  the 
"  patriots  "  of  various  shades  of  opinion,  as  giving 
Russia  an  advantage  over  Europe.  Such  was  the 
opinion  not  only  of  the  official  chauvinists,  with  their 
insincere  optimism,  but  even  of  the  sincere  and  honest 
patriots  of  the  Slavophile  camp.  The  harangues 
in  prose  and  verse  in  which  they  contrast  "  Holy 
Russia  "  with  "  pagan  Europe  "  read  very  strangely 
to-day. 

"What  are  you  counting  on?  " — so  Mey,  one  of 
the  patriotic  poets  of  1855,  addressed  the  enemy.  "  On 
the  courage  of  your  troops?  But  every  Russian  soldier 
is  not  merely  brave  in  battle,  he  is  intrepidly  calm. 
For  everywhere,  from  the  banks  of  the  Neva  to 
Sebastopol,  he  stands  erect  to  defend  Russia  and 
religion.  He  does  not  stand  for  a  chimera  of  the 
Press,  nor  for  the  vanities  of  representative  chambers." 

Another  Slavophile  poet,  A.  Khomiakov,  proclaims 
in  a  poem  written  in  1854  that  "God  has  bestowed 
His  love  upon  Russia,  and  has  given  her  a  fatal  might 

1  Kuropatkin,  Memoirs. 


104  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

that  she  may  destroy  the  malevolence  of  blind, 
unreasoning,    and    barbarous    (sic)    forces." 

Is  this  aberration  or  hypocrisy,  or  an  unconscious 
attempt  to  justify  the  blemishes  of  Russia  by  her 
supreme    predestination? 

However  this  may  be,  in  the  same  poem  the  poet 
does  not  hesitate  to  tell  his  country  the  following 
truths  : — 

Remember  that  to  be  the  instrument 

Of  God  is  difficult  for  earthly  creatures  ; 

His  judgment  of  His  servants  is  severe  ; 

And  thou,  alas  !  dost  bear  the  burden  of 

So  many  dreadful  crimes.     For  in  thy  courts 

Reigns  black  injustice  ;  thou  dost  bear  the  brand 

Worn  by  the  yoke  of  slavery  ;  thou  art  full 

Of  impious  flatteries  and  pestiferous  lies, 

And  all  abominations. 

Khomiakov  himself  realized  that  in  truth  his  country 
"  was  unworthy  of  the  divine  election,"  but  he  never- 
theless believed  that  she  was  elected,  and  that  "  she 
would   smite  her  enemies   with  the  sword   of   God." 

This  miracle  did  not  come  to  pass.  The  defeat 
of  Russia  at  Sebastopol,  so  insignificant  from  a  military 
point  of  view,  had  an  enormous  political  and  moral 
effect,  because  it  opened  the  eyes  of  all  more  or  less 
discerning  and  conscientious  Russians  to  all  the  evils 
from  which  their  country  was  suffering.  The  immediate 
result  of  this  defeat  was  the  "  period  of  the  great 
reforms,"  followed  by  the  movement  known  by  the 
name  of  Nihilism.  The  military  downfall  of  Russia 
made  an  end  of  the  legend  of  Russian  supremacy  which 
had  been  prevalent  abroad  ;  and  within  Russia  it  shook 
the  principle  of  autocratic  government.  The  "  nega- 
tion "  of  the  old  ideas  of  authority,  and  of  all  those 
prejudices  on  which  the  old  life  was  based,  was  a 
logical  result  of  this  catastrophe.  This  is  why  "  nega- 
tion "  formed  the  basis  of  Nihilism. 


RUSSIA  IN  ARMS   AND  EUROPE  105 


III 

The  antithesis  established  by  the  patriots  between 
"  Holy  Russia  "  and  "  pagan  Europe  "  at  the  time  of 
the  Crimean  War  was  to  a  certain  extent  justified  by 
the  presence  of  Turkey  in  the  coalition  formed  against 
the  Empire  of  the  Tsar,  which  enabled  the  Russian 
Government  to  pose  as  the  defender  of  brother  Slavs 
and  Christians  against  the  "  infidel,"  "  heathen  " 
Mahomedans. 

It  is  true  that  the  situation  of  the  Christian  and 
Slav  peoples  in  the  Balkans  was  at  this  time 
unendurable.  But  the  Government  of  Nicolas  I,  a 
reactionary  and  an  oppressor  of  his  own  people, 
had  no  moral  right  to  arrogate  to  itself  the  role  of 
defender,  since  its  whole  previous  conduct  had  been  in 
absolute  contradiction  to  the  mission  which  it  claimed 
to  fulfil.  Alexander  I,  after  the  Congress  of  Vienna, 
had  declared  himself  openly  hostile  to  a  rising  of  the 
Balkanic  peoples  against  the  Turks.  For  example,  in 
1821  (at  the  Congress  of  Lay  bach),  he  severely 
condemned  the  Greeks'  desire  for  independence,  regard- 
ing  it   as   a   manifestation  of  the   revolutionary   spirit. 

In  order  to  confirm  his  opinion  by  action,  he 
dismissed  Prince  Ypsilanti  from  the  corps  of  officers 
of  the  Russian  Army,  because  he  had  assumed  the 
command  of  the  Greek  insurgents  ;  and  he  dismissed 
Count  Capo  d'Istria,  a  Greek  citizen  and  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  in  Russia,  who  fomented  the  revolt  of 
his  compatriots  against  the  Turkish  rule.  The  liberated 
Greeks  having  elected  Capo  d'Istria  President  of  their 
Republic,  the  Russian  Government  attempted  to  induce 
him  to  subserve  its  reactionary  policy  in  Greece,  thereby 
provoking  a  protest  on  the  part  of  the  advanced  parties 
of  that  country  and  the  assassination  of  Capo  d'Istria 
by  two  Republican  patriots,  the  brothers  Mavromikhalis. 

Enlightened  Russians  did  not  approve  of  the  obscure 
and    reactionary    policy    of    their    Government.      The 


106  RUSSIA   AND  EUROPE 

famous  poet  Pushkin  encouraged  the  Greek  insurrection 
in  the  following  lines  : — 

Arise,  O  Greece,  arise  ! 

Not  in  vain  is  thy  striving, 

Not  in  vain  does  war  shake  Olympus, 

Pindus,  and  the  crags  of  Thermopylae. 

Beneath  the  secular  shadow  of  their  peaks 

Was  born  the  liberty  of  ancient  time, 

The  sacred  marbles  of  Athens, 

The  tombs  of  Theseus  and  Pericles. 

Land  of  heroes  and  of  slaves, 

Shatter  the  chains  of  slavery, 

Singing  the  fiery  songs 

Of  Tyrtasus,  Byron,  and  Rigas  ! 

Austria  encouraged  the  reactionary  interference  of 
the  Russian  Government  in  the  domestic  affairs  of 
Greece,  being  well  aware  that  it  would  thereby  suffer 
the  loss  of  Greek  sympathies  ;  and  Alexander's 
opposition  to  the  movement  of  liberation  was  due  to 
the    counsels   of   Metternich. 

France  and  England,  on  the  other  hand,  declared 
themselves  in  favour  of  the  establishment  of  a  consti- 
tutional regime  in  Greece  ;  but  they  were  guilty  of 
another  mistake  in  supporting  the  candidature  of  Prince 
Otto  of  Bavaria  to  the  Greek  throne,  thereby  permit- 
ting German  influence  to  get  its  first  roots  into  the 
Greek    soil. 

Half  a  century  later  another  example  occurred  of 
the  deviation  impressed  by  internal  reaction  on  the 
external  policy  of  the  Empire  :  the  Government 
attempted  to  enforce  the  complete  submission  of 
Bulgaria,  whom  the  war  of  1877-78  had  rendered 
independent,  to  its  tutelage.  It  merely  succeeded  in 
exciting  an  anti-Russian  movement  which  carried 
Stamhouloff  into  power,  and  allowed  Germany  and 
Austria    to    implant    their    influence    in    the    country. 

We  find  the  same  blunder  exemplified  in  the 
present  war.  A  considerable  portion  of  the  Russian 
(Ruthenian)    and    Polish   population    of   Buk'ovina   and 


RUSSIA   IN   ARMS   AND   EUROPE  10 

Galicia,  dissatisfied  under  the  Austrian  domination 
gladly  welcomed  the  Russians  when  they  occupied  the 
two  provinces.  But  the  civil  officials  who  followed 
the  armies  immediately  began  their  work  of  reaction 
and  oppression,  irritating  the  indigenous  population  by 
the  persecutions  of  their  police. 

It  is  true  that  the  Prussians  too  used  to  treat  the 
Poles  abominably,  and  that  the  situation  of  the  Slavs 
in  Austria  and  Hungary  was  extremely  difficult  ;  but 
Germans,  Poles,  Austrians,  Czechs,  Hungarians, 
Ruthenians,  and  Serbs  are  divided  among  themselves, 
politically  and  ethnically,  while  Russia,  being  akin  to 
the  Slavs,  might  have  been  a  true  friend  and  protector, 
had  it  not  been  for  her  bureaucrats. 

It  is  now  clear  that  the  Slav  problem  is,  for  Russia, 
bound  up  with  the  problem  of  her  own  progress,  her 
own  Europeanization.  Although  fifty  years  ago  Russia, 
albeit  herself  but  half-civilized  and  despotically 
governed,  drew  to  herself  the  Slavs  of  the  Balkans, 
then  subjected  to  the  terrible  yoke  of  the  Sultans 
and  leading  an  almost  barbarous  existence,  to-day  her 
proteges  have  become  independent,  and  have  entered 
upon  a  process  of  rapid  civilization  and  European- 
ization ;  they  have  even,  in  some  respects,  outstripped 
their  sometime  liberator,  Russia.  They  possess  highly 
democratic  Constitutions,  Parliaments,  an  intense 
political  life,  while  in  Russia  the  constitutional  regime 
is  hardly  born,  and  many  vestiges  of  the  old  regime 
remain.  Consequently,  the  gaze  of  her  sometime  clients 
is  turning  toward  Western  Europe,  not  to  her.  Austria 
and  Germany  have  contrived  to  profit  by  this  change. 
As  for  the  Russian  bureaucracy,  it  does  not  yet  under- 
stand. 

In  my  Russia  and  the  Great  War  I  cited  the  opinion 
of  Baron  Rosen,  member  of  the  Imperial  Council,  who 
states  that  Russian  influence  has  declined  among  the 
Balkan  Slavs,  and  that  "the  great  Slav  idea'  is,  for 
Russia,   "  devoid  of  all   real  foundation." 

"  All    undertakings    inspired    by    this    idea— as,    for 


108  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

example,  the  Slav  Bank,  the  exhibition  of  Russian 
products,  the  Russian  libraries  in  Slav  countries,  etc. — 
either  remain  in  the  condition  of  mere  projects,  or 
drag  themselves  through  a  miserable  existence.  .  .  . 
In  the  domain  of  material  civilization  Russia  has  no 
need  of  the  Slav  world,  or  the  Slav  world  of  Russia. 
In  the  Slav  States  of  the  Balkans  our  industry,  which 
has  at  its  disposal  a  vast  home  market  defended  by 
extremely  high  protective  tariffs,  could  only  at  a  loss 
compete  with  the  Austro-German  industries  ;  as  for 
the  Slavs  of  the  South,  their  commercial  relations  with 
the  Austro -Hungarian  monarchy,  their  neighbour,  will 
always  be  more  advantageous  than  their  relations  with 
distant  Russia.  From  the  intellectual  standpoint  the 
Slavs  of  the  Balkans  (and  still  more  those  of  Austria), 
despite  a  somewhat  factitious  Germanophobia,  evidently 
prefer — and  this  is  very  natural — to  tap  directly  and 
at  first  hand  the  Western  sources,  and  principally  those 
of    Germany." 

Baron  Rosen  regards  this  situation  as  the  normal 
one.  He  does  not  seem  to  see  that  a  "  Europeanized  " 
Russia  could  group  around  her  her  brothers  by  race, 
forming  a  veritable  federation  of  Russo-Slavic  civiliza- 
tions. This  simple  idea  does  not  occur  to  him,  and 
he  advises  his  Government  to  abandon  the  Balkans 
to  Austro-German  Imperialism,  and,  having  bid  the 
West  adieu,  to  turn  again  toward  Asia. 

"  By  abandoning  to  Germany  supremacy  in  the 
Western  portion  of  Europe,  and  by  dissociating  herself 
completely  from  all  rivalries  between  European  powers 
based  on  interests  purely  European,  Russia  would  assure 
herself  of  the  security  of  her  Western  frontier,  and  would 
have  her  hands  free  for  the  accomplishment  of  her 
mission  in  Asia." 

For  M.  Rosen  believes  and  proclaims  that  Russia 
is    "more    especially    an    Asiatic    Power." 


CHAPTER    V 

I.  The  war  with  Europeanized  Japan — The  Asiatic  question.  II.  The 
German  barrier  isolating  Russia  from  Europe — The  Baltic  Sea 
and  the  Straits — The  great  European  conflict,  and  its  general 
import  from  a  Russian  point  of  view. 

I 

The  theory  advanced  by  Baron  Rosen,  that  is,  that 
Russia  should  seek  her  objective  in  Asia,  was  by  the 
end  of  the  nineteenth  century  supported  by  other  repre- 
sentatives of  the  ancien  regime.  It  also  had  the  support 
of  the  German  Government,  which  was  anxious  to  urge 
Russia  to  enter  upon  adventures  in  the  Far  East,  in  order 
that  Germany  and  Austria  might  thereby  enjoy  full 
liberty  of  manoeuvre  in  Europe,  the  Balkans,  and  Asia 
Minor.  It  is  undeniable  that  Russia's  advance  towards 
the  frontier  of  Korea  and  Port  Arthur  was  encouraged 
by  German  diplomacy. 

But,  curiously  enough,  in  the  Far  East  Russia  en- 
countered Europe  !  Not  only  because  Europe,  in  the 
shape  of  the  gold  of  old  England,  stood  behind  Japan, 
but  also  because  Russia  came  into  conflict  with  the 
civilization  of  Europe,  which,  since  the  revolution  of 
1868,  had  entirely  transformed  the  economic  and 
political  life  of  Japan,  and  had  given  birth  to  new  forms 
of  capitalist  production,  new  industrial  methods,  and 
novel  means  of  warfare. 

It  should  be  remarked  that  the  revolution  in  Japan, 

and    the    beginning    of     the     Europeanization     of    the 

country,  coincided  with  the  "  period  of  great  reforms  "  in 

Russia.    But  Japan  had  more  sense  of  progress.   Having 

undertaken    to    modernize    the    country,    the    Japanese 

10 


110  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

applied  themselves  to  the  task  without  intermission, 
with  the  assistance  of  all  the  energies  of  the  nation, 
which  were  left  free  to  develop  themselves  and  to  mani- 
fest themselves  in  Parliament,  the  Press,  the  schools, 
the  industries  of  the  country,  etc.  The  Russian  Govern- 
ment, on  the  other  hand,  after  some  concessions  granted 
to  the  people  in  the  time  of  Alexander  II,  halted 
midway,  and  then  began  to  draw  back,  and  to  restore 
the  ancien  regime  in  all  its  most  lamentable  forms. 
The  energies  of  Japan,  exploited  according  to  European 
conceptions,  became  relatively  greater,  or  rather  more 
deeply  rooted  and  readier  for  action,  than  the  still  un- 
formed and  sluggish  energies  of  the  vast  Russian 
Empire.  And  Russia  was  beaten  by  her  puny  adver- 
sary, and  with  unexpected  ease.  In  reality  it  was 
once  again  the  West  which  triumphed  over  Russia  in 
1905. 

I  shall  not  speak  here,  having  done  so  elsewhere, 
of  the  results  of  this  unhappy  war  with  Japan  as  regards 
the  internal  life  of  Russia.  I  will  merely  observe 
that  then  was  finally  determined  the  general  position  of 
Russia  between  the  East  and  the  West,  between  Europe 
and  Asia.  The  reader  will  have  heard  the  famous 
query1  :  "Is  Russia  the  most  Western  of  all  the  Asiatic 
States  or  the  most  Eastern  of  all  the  European  States?  " 
The  Manchurian  War  gave  the  best  possible  answer 
to  this  question  by  suppressing  it.  The  war  demon- 
strated, in  effect,  firstly,  that  the  terms  Eastern,  Western, 
Europe,  and  Asia  are  merely  relative  and  retrospective, 
the  remotest  of  the  States  of  the  Far  East  having 
become  European,  and  having  entered  the  Concert  of 
the  European  Powers.  On  the  other  hand,  it  imposed, 
on  Russia's  action  in  Asia,  the  same  law  which  con- 
ditioned her  action  in  Europe.  Forced  to  become 
European  if  she  did  not  wish  to  remain  in  the  rear 
of  her  brothers  by  race,  Russia  was  also  obliged  to 
become  European  in  order  to  maintain  her  rank  among 
the  Asiatic  States  which  were  becoming  modernized — 
such  as  China  and  Persia. 


RUSSIA   IN   ARMS   AND   EUROPE  111 

II 

iThis  process  of  evolution  is  all  the  more  necessary 
to  Russia  in  that  the  unhappy  result  of  her  adventure 
in  the  Far  East  has  thrown  her  back  upon  Europe. 
But  Germany,  during  the  war,  seized  the  opportunity 
of  carrying  out  her  Pangermanist  schemes  in  Western 
Europe,  Turkey,  and  Asia  Minor.  These  schemes, 
dangerous  to  all  European  States,  were  especially  a 
danger  to  Russia,  for  they  threatened  the  very  basis  of 
her  future  development.  She  had  laid  hands,  or  was 
preparing  to  lay  hands,  on  the  Baltic  Sea,  the 
Dardanelles,  and  the  Bosphorus. 

The  construction  of  a  powerful  Navy  and  the  cutting 
of  the  Kiel  Canal  had  made  Germany  the  absolute 
mistress  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  from  which  the  naval  forces 
of  Russia  had  disappeared  in  1905.  Thus  the  work  of 
Peter  the  Great,  a  maritime  highway  communicating 
with  Europe,  was,  if  not  destroyed,  at  least  entirely  at 
the  mercy  of  the  German  Empire,  which  could  at  any 
moment  close  it  with  its  submarines  and  ironclads. 

To  measure  only  the  economic  significance  of  the 
mastery  obtained  by  Germany,  it  is  enough  to  reflect 
that  about  30  per  cent,  of  all  Russia's  exports 
(£49,080,000  out  of  a  total  of  £162,160,000  in  19 13) 
travels  by  the  Baltic  Sea.  As  for  the  political  and 
intellectual  value  of  Russia's  connection  with  Europe 
by  way  of  the  Baltic,   it  is  incalculable. 

But  the  Dardanelles  route  is  no  less  necessary  to 
Russia  ;  it  is  perhaps  even  more  necessary.  From  the 
ports  of  the  Black  Sea  and  the  Sea  of  Azov  a  third  part 
of  the  total  exportation  of  Russia  leaves  the  country  ; 
in  191 3  its  value  was  £51,440,000.  Cereals  in 
particular  go  by  way  of  the  Dardanelles;  in  191 3, 
of  10,670,000  tons  exported,  7,900,000  tons,  or  more 
than  80  per  cent.,  went  by  this  route,  which  is  that 
followed  more  particularly  by  the  grain  destined  for 
Italy,  Switzerland,  France,  Belgium,  Holland,  and  Eng- 
land.    Of  the  corn  imported  in    191 3  by  the  following 


112  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

countries,  the  amounts  furnished  by  Russia  were  : 
881,000  tons  to  Italy,  the  total  imports  being  1,8  1 1,000 
tons;  to  Holland,  1,715,000  tons  out  of  3,883,000; 
while  40  per  cent,  of  the  corn  consumed  by  Switzerland 
was  of  Russian  origin.1  The  Dardanelles  route  is  thus 
of  prime  importance  to  Russia  and  to  the  countries  of 
Europe.  It  is  also  of  prime  importance  to  the  industrial 
future  of  Russia,  for  it  forms  the  outlet  by  which  she 
exports  the  products  of  the  mining  regions,  coal-fields, 
and  petroleum-fields  of  the  South,  and  imports  an  ever- 
increasing   quantity   of   European   merchandise. 

The  Dardanelles,  while  in  the  exclusive  possession 
of  Turkey,  were  open  to  Russia,  Turkey  by  herself 
not  being  strong  enough  to  dare  to  close  them.  But  of 
late  years  German  Imperialism  has  installed  itself  in 
Constantinople,  there  to  commence  the  execution  of 
its  gigantic  scheme  of  the  Bagdad  Railway.  Again, 
but  this  time  on  the  South,  a  Germanic  barrier  was  to 
divide  Russia  from  the  West,  while  the  German  Army 
and  Navy  hemmed  her  in  on  the  West. 

That  one  of  the  aims  of  Germany  in  installing  her- 
self on  the  Bosphorus  was  to  separate  Russia  from 
Europe  has  long  been  admitted  by  the  Pangermanists 
themselves. 

"  Turkey  opposes  an  obstacle  to  the  penetration  of 
the  Mediterranean  by  the  mighty  Eurasian  nation — 
Russia,"  wrote  Colonel  Rogalla  von  Bieberstein  in  a 
military  review  (1902).  "This  obstacle  resides  rather 
in  the  fortified  works  on  the  Bosphorus  and  the 
Dardanelles  than  in  the  international  treaties  concerning 
these  straits.  Germany  also  is  greatly  interested  in  the 
maintenance  of  this  barrier.  It  is  greatly  to  the  interest 
of  Germany  that  this  barrier  should  be  maintained, 
and  that  Russia  should  not  penetrate  the  Mediter- 
ranean." 2 

*  I  cite  these  figures  from  L Europe]  devant  Constantinople,  by  Max 
Hoschiller  (Paris,  1916),   p.  101. 

2  Cited  from  M.  Andre  Cheradame's  work  on  La  Question  d'Orienl. 
La  Macidoine.    Le  chemin  defer  de  Bagdad  (Paris,  1903),  p.  253. 


RUSSIA   IN   ARMS   AND  EUROPE  113 

German  Imperialism  had  two  reasons  for  wishing 
to  keep  Russia  apart  from  Europe. 

The  first  reason  is  expounded  as  follows  by  a  German 
military  writer,  Colonel  Hildebrandt  : — 

"  The  advantages  acquired  by  Germany  by  the  con- 
clusion of  the  treaty  relating  to  the  Bagdad  Railway 
seriously  diminish  the  influence  of  Russia  in  Asia  Minor  ; 
and  the  activities  of  Russia  are  once  more  turning 
toward  Central  Asia,  which  is,  for  that  matter,  her  true 
sphere."  r 

Russia  thrown  back  upon  Central  Asia,  the  German 
domination  would  spread  without  hindrance  through  the 
Balkans,   Turkey,   and   Asia   Minor. 

Finally,  separated  from  Europe,  Russia  would  inevit- 
ably have  become  a  German  colony,  an  object  of 
exploitation   for    the    subjects    of    the    Kaiser. 

This  colossal  and  permanent  blockade  would  have 
arrested  the  economic  development  of  Russia,  award- 
ing the  final  supremacy  to  the  Germanophile  reaction 
in  the  Russian  Government. 

It  is  therefore  the  fact  that  in  its  present  resistance 
to  German  Imperialism  the  Russian  people  is  fighting, 
not  merely  for  the  defence  of  its  territory,  but  for  its 
whole  future,  for  liberty  of  communion  in  the  life  of 
the  West. 

Happily  it  has,  for  its  companions  in  arms,  the  most 
advanced  of  the  Western  Powers.  France,  Belgium, 
England,  Italy,  and  Serbia  (which  is  the  most  civi- 
lized of  the  Slav  countries  of  the  Balkans),  form,  with 
Russia,  a  single  resistant  mass  to  oppose  the  scheme 
of  subjection  attempted  by  Germany  and  her  allies, 
Austria,    Turkey,    and    Bulgaria. 

I  will  not  repeat  here  what  I  said  in  my  book  on 
Russia  and  the  Great  War  concerning  the  effect  of 
the  present  war  upon  Russian  life.  I  will  only  call 
the  reader's  attention  to  those  facts  which  best  exhibit 
this  effect. 

The  present  war  with  Germany  presents  this  analogy 

1  Cheiadame,  op.  cit.  p.  255. 
8 


114  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

with  the  war  of  1812 — it  has  a  national  character.  All 
the  democrats  in  Russia  recognize  in  this  war  the  cause 
of  liberty,  external  and  internal.  On  the  other  hand, 
for  the  reactionaries,  the  ante-bellum  Germanophiles, 
to  fight  against  the  junkers  is  the  worst  of  calamities. 
For  a  long  time  they  had  maintained  close  connections 
with  their  political  co-religionists  in  Prussia,  and  were 
visibly  full  of  complaisance  toward  them.  Kaiserism 
contrived  to  profit  by  this  weakness  of  the  Russian 
bureaucracy  and  autocracy,  which  became  its  instru- 
ments ;  the  German  advance  upon  Bagdad,  the  Austrian 
penetration  of  the  Balkans,  the  annexation  of  Bosnia- 
Herzegovina,  were  regarded  with  complete  favour  by 
the  friendly  reactionaries  of  Russia,  who  subordinated 
the  international  interests  of  the  Empire  to  their  own 
domestic  interests.  They  regret  the  rupture  with 
Kaiserism,  which  is  one  of  the  principal  props  of 
the  present  monarchical  regime,  and  the  union  of 
their  country  with  republican  France  and  the  consti- 
tutional States  of  Great  Britain,  Italy,  and  Belgium. 
The  champions  of  progress  are  of  a  precisely  opposite 
opinion,  seeing  in  the  present  fraternity  of  Russia  and 
the  Western  nations  a  force  tending  to  democratize  and 
Europeanize  their  country.  This  is  why  they  believe 
that  their  country  will  achieve  its  own  liberty  when  it 
reaches  the  end  of  the  road  leading  to  victory  over 
the  external  oppressor. 


PART   THE    THIRD 

THE   EUROPEANIZATION  OF   THE 

STATE 


CHAPTER    1 

I.  A  European  State  in  ancient  Russia :  the  Free  City  of  Novgorod. 
II.  The  birth  of  the  absolute  monarchy  and  its  conflict  with 
feudalism— Western  influences  in  Russian  feudalism. 

I 

The  historians  of  the  old  national  school  love  to 
attribute  an  external  cause  to  the  vices  of  the  super- 
annuated political  system  which  has  survived  in  Russia. 
For  some,  the  Tartar  yoke  vitiated  the  normal  develop- 
ment of  the  nation.  Others  accuse  the  contagion  of 
the  West  of  having  corrupted  the  purity  of  Russian 
morals  and  the  patriarchal  relations  existing  between 
the  people  and  its  sovereigns.  Both  look  to  the  remote 
past  for  the  "  true  "  character  and  the  "  national  " 
political  spirit  cited  so  often  and  so  readily  in  the 
histories  of  the  "  urban  republics  "  of  Novgorod  and 
Pskov,  which  they  claim  to  be  of  purely  autochthonous 
origin. 

Impartial  criticism  has  destroyed  this  legend,  and 
has  proved  that  the  republican  institutions  of  the  Free 
Cities  of  Novgorod  and  Pskov  owe  their  birth  and 
their  development  to  a  direct  external  influence — to  their 
economic  relations  with  the  Free  Towns  of  Europe. 

What  was  the  political  constitution  of  Novgorod? 
The  city  was  governed  by  a  vetche,  that  is,  by  a  body 
composed  of  all  the  citizens.  The  vetche  elected 
tysiatskii'  (from  the  word  tyslatsha,  meaning  thousand) 
and  the  posadnik,  that  is,  the  president  of  the  republic. 
The  tysiatskie  with  the  posadnik  formed  a  council  which 
directed  affairs.  Mutatis  mutandis,  this  is  the  same 
urban  oligarchy  which  we  find  in  all  the  trading  cities 

117 


118  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

of  the  Middle  Ages,  on  the  shores  of  the  Adriatic  (in 
Venice)  and  the  Mediterranean  (in  Genoa),  as  on  the 
shores  of  the  North  Sea  (in  Flanders,  Holland,  and 
Germany). 

But  Novgorod  traded  with  the  Free  Towns  of 
Germany.  As  early  as  the  twelfth  century  it  possessed 
"  markets  of  Gothland  and  Germany,"  founded  by 
foreign  merchants  from  Gothland  and.  Liibeck.  In  the 
thirteenth  century  it  entered  into  relations  with  the 
Hanseatic  League  ;  and  it  was  precisely  at  this  period 
that  the  burghers  freed  themselves  from  the  domination 
of  princes  and  set  up  elective  authorities.  The  moment 
when  the  foreign  trade  of  Novgorod  attained  the  highest 
pitch  of  prosperity  coincided  with  the  moment  when  its 
republican    institutions    were   at    their   apogee. 

The  oligarchical  form  of  the  Government  was 
borrowed  by  the  Russian  cities  from  the  foreign  urban 
republics  with  which  they  were  connected  by  a  current 
of  exchanges. 

"  The  success  of  the  foreign  trade,  which  had  become 
the  principal  focus  of  urban  life,"  says  Klutshevsky, 
"  resulted  in  the  creation  of  certain  great  houses,  which 
placed  themselves  at  the  head  of  affairs,  and  subse- 
quently assumed  the  direction  of  the  civil  administration. 
This  aristocracy  governed  only  de  facto,  and  without 
the  establishment  of  the  democratic  forms  of  the  Novgo- 
rodian  constitution." 

II 

This  constitution  was  forcibly  suppressed  by  the 
Muscovite  Tsars  in  the  fifteenth  century.  Then  com- 
menced the  autocratic  Tsarist  regime  which  has  lasted 
until  to-day. 

As  I  have  already  stated  in  my  Modern  Russia,  the 
Muscovite  monarchy,  in  order  to  become  a  real  auto- 
cracy, had  to  stifle  not  only  the  republican  institutions 
of  the  burghers  of  the  Free  Cities  of  the  North-West, 
but  also  the  feudal  and  separatist  tendencies  of  other 
princes,  princelets,  boyars,  etc. 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION   OF  THE   STATE     119 

Recent  historical  researches  have  demonstrated  that 
there  is  an  analogy  between  feudal  Europe  and  the 
Russia  of  the  thirteenth,  fourteenth,  and  fifteenth 
centuries.  There  are  similarities  even  in  the  terms 
expressing  the  relations  of  sovereignty  and  law  between 
the  suzerains  and  vassals  of  mediaeval  Europe  and  their 
Russian  colleagues. 

One  question  presents  itself  :  Do  these  resemblances 
arise  merely  from  a  coincidence  of  evolution,  or  from 
the  more  or  less  direct  influence  of  the  West? 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  influence  cannot  be  disputed. 
Still,  it  cannot  positively  be  observed  except  in  the 
western  provinces,  neighbouring  on  Lithuania  and 
Poland.  Poland,  as  we  know,  retained,  until  the  loss 
of  her  independence,  a  very  active  and  profoundly  rooted 
feudal  system.  The  frontier  regions  of  Great  Russia 
and  the  Ukraine  were  affected  by  their  contact  with 
Poland  and  Polish  Lithuania,  and  it  was  their  local 
nobility  which  opposed  the  most  obstinate  resistance 
to  the  absolute  power  which  came  into  being  in  Moscow. 
To  Lithuania  and  Poland  fled  those  Muscovite  boyars 
who  were  in  conflict  with  the  princes  and  tsars  ;  for 
instance,  Andrei  Kurbsky  in  the  reign  of  Ivan  the 
Terrible. 

The  influence  of  the  West  was  also  very  perceptible 
in  Galician  Russia,  where  the  relations  between  prince 
and  boyar,  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  century, 
were  precisely  similar  to  the  relations  between  the 
European  suzerains  and  their  feudatories.  The  Galician 
princes  even  made  use  of  seals  of  Western  pattern,  and 
the  language  of  their  ukases  was  Latin.  At  one  moment 
they  endeavoured  to  make  themselves  princes  of  all 
the  Russias.  If  they  had  succeeded,  events  might  have 
followed  quite  a  different  course.  But  Asia  intervened, 
in  the  invasions  of  the  nomads  and  the  Tartar  yoke, 
which  divided  South-Western  Russia  from-  North- 
Eastern  Russia,  and  forced  it  into  other  paths. 

The  Government  of  the  Russian  State  retained  the 
imprint   of   the    Tartar    yoke.      During   a    long   period 


120  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

the  Russian  principalities  remained  under  the  Asiatic 
domination,  and  the  Prince  of  Moscow,  although  High 
Prince  of  Russia,  was  the  principal  vassal  of  the  Tartar 
Khan,  and  was  subject  to  his  tutelage.  It  was  very 
natural  that  his  Government  should  be  modelled  on 
the  despotism  of  Asia.  Foreigners  who  visited  Russia 
in  the  sixteenth  century — that  is,  at  the  time  of  the 
formation  of  the  Muscovite  autocracy — were  amazed  by 
what  they  saw,  and  wondered  whether  they  were  in 
Europe  or  Asia.  "  The  Russian  State  greatly  resembles 
the  Turkish,  which  the  Russians  endeavour  to  imitate," 
said  the  Englishman  John  Fletcher  (who  visited  Moscow 
in  1588)  in  his  work  On  the  Russian  Commonwealth. 
"  Their  Government  is  purely  tyrannical  ;  all  its  actions 
serve  the  profit  and  the  advantage  of  the  Tsar  ex- 
clusively, and  this  in  the  most  open  and  most  barbarous 
fashion."  »  The  power  of  the  central  authority,  and 
the  foundation  of  the  autocracy,  were  alike  favoured 
by  the  necessities  of  the  struggle  against  external 
enemies  :  firstly  against  the  Asiatic  hordes,  and  then 
against  Russia's  Western  neighbours.  With  the  Asiatics 
Russia  was  at  war  until  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
and  her  triumph  over  the  Tartars  coincided  with  that 
of  the  Tsars  over  the  feudal  system.  The  historian 
Klutshevsky  is  right  in  asserting  that  the  victory  of 
Russia  over  the  Mongols  was  the  victory  of  Europe 
over  Asia.  But  Georg  Plekhanov  states,  with  equal 
reason,  that  '  Europe  conquered  the  Asiatics  only  be- 
cause she  herself  had  become  Asia."2  M.  Plekhanov 
develops   this   idea   in   a  few   remarkable   pages   of  his 

1  I  may  remark  in  passing  that  the  first  edition  of  Fletcher's  work, 
published  in  England  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  was  burned 
by  order  of  the  English  Government,  which  was  anxious  to  avoid 
offending  the  Tsar  by  permitting  the  expression  of  certain  disagree- 
able truths.  In  Russia  the  first  edition  of  this  book  was  published 
in  1848,  in  a  historical  review.  The  number  in  which  it  appeared 
was  burned,  and  the  editor  had  anything  but  an  agreeable  time,  what 
with  the  censorship,  the  police,  and  the  gendarmerie. 

3  G.  Plekhanov,  History  of  the  Social  Idea  in  Russia,  vol.  i.  p.  98 
(Moscow,  1914). 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION   OF   THE   STATE     121 

masterly  History  of  the  Social  Idea  in  Russia,  the 
tv/o  volumes  of  which  have  lately  appeared.  In 
the  formation  of  the  State  in  Russia  and  in  Europe 
M.    Plekhanov    perceives   these   essential  differences  : — 

"  In  Russia,  as  well  as  in  Europe,  the  central  authority 
was  able  to  overcome  the  centrifugal  aspirations  of 
the  feudal  seigneurs.  But  in  France,  for  example, 
the  kings,  while  imposing  their  authority  on  the  nobility, 
did  not  deprive  the  latter  of  the  right  of  possessing 
landed  property,  and  did  not  subject  them  to  obligatory 
service.  Or,  as  M.  d'Avenel  remarks,  'privilege  was 
not  the  recompense  for  service  rendered,  but  the  right 
of  birth.'  In  Russia  it  was  quite  otherwise.  There 
property  in  land  became  a  State  fund,  into  which  the 
Tsars  dipped  when  they  wished  to  repay  the  services 
of  a  noble.  And  what  the  nobles  did  for  the  peasants, 
in  putting  lands  at  their  disposal  in  exchange  for  com- 
pulsory labour,  the  Tsars  did  for  the  nobles,  who  were 
thus,  in  a  manner  of  speaking,  merely  superior  serfs." 
This  condition  of  affairs  was  typical  of  ancient  Chaldea, 
ancient  Egypt,  and  Persia,  and  in  general  of  all  the 
great  despotic  States  of  Asia.  M.  Plekhanov  is  right 
in  comparing  Muscovite  Russia  with  these  States,  and 
in  perceiving  the  elements  of  Asiatic  despotism  in  the 
evolution  of   the   Russia   of   this   period. 

But  Russia  did  not  remain  in  the  stage  of  political 
development  which  these  States  retained  until  their  final 
dissolution.  "  Russian  evolution  offers  the  peculiarity — 
and  this  time  it  is  in  favour  of  progress — of  a  great 
resemblance  to  Asia  followed  by  a  very  slow  but  irre- 
sistible turning  toward  the  European  West,  while  the 
Asiatic  States,  properly  so  called,  do  not  present  us 
with  examples  of  the  tendency  toward  Europeaniza- 
tion  until  after  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
Japan  lpeing  the  foremost."  l 

1  G.  Plekhanov,  op.  cit. 


CHAPTER    II 

I.  Military  power  and  the  reform  of  the  State  administration  under 
Peter  I — Swedish  influences.  II.  The  palace  revolutions  of  the 
eighteenth  century  and  the  influence  of  Europe.  III.  German 
domination,  and  the  anti-Germanic  movement  under  Anna — The 
participation  of  France  and  England  in  the  coup  d'etat  of  1741 — 
A  Duke  of  Holstein  the  Russian  Tsar — His  Prussophilia.  IV.  The 
conspiracy  of  1801  and  British  diplomacy. 


At  one  particular  and  very  important  point  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Russian  State  was  unlike  that  of  the 
European  States.  This  point  was  the  organization  of 
the  military  forces. 

In  the  Western  monarchies,  thanks  to  the  rapid 
increase  of  pecuniary  wealth,  the  kings — for  example, 
in  France — were  enabled  to  take  into  their  service 
mercenary  troops,  and,  consequently,  were  no  longer 
dependent  on  the  seigneurial  militia.  The  replacement 
of  the  militia  by  paid  troops  forced  the  kings  to  depend 
on  the  Third  Estate,  the  source  whence  they  derived 
the  necessary  money. 

In  Russia,  on  the  other  hand,  the  urban  bourgeoisie, 
even  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  was 
too  weak  to  be  of  material  help  to  the  Tsars,  and  the 
military  needs  were  too  great  to  be  filled  by  mercenary 
troops.  The  military  organism  had  to  be  constituted 
otherwise  than  in  Europe. 

Until  the  year  1705  the  Russian  Army  consisted 
of  a  seigneurial  cavalry — that  is,  a  mounted  militia,  a 
few  regiments  of  paid  infantry  and  cavalry.     The  war 

with  Sweden  forced  Peter's  Government  to  draw  with- 

122 


THE  EUROPE ANIZATION   OF  THE   STATE     123 

out  delay  upon  other  sources.  It  adopted  the  principle 
of  compulsory  recruiting,  which  was  applied,  for  the 
first  time,  in  1705,  when  the  Government  ordered  the 
population  to  provide  it  with  recruits  at  the  rate  of 
one  recruit  for  every  twenty  peasant  dvors.1 

Towards  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Peter  I  the  Russian 
Army  already  numbered  200,000  men  of  the  regular 
troops  and  100,000  Cossacks  and  other  irregulars.  The 
upkeep  of  these  numerous  effectives  was  costly — 
5,000,000  roubles,  to  which  must  be  added  i£  million 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  fleet,  so  that  the  total 
military  expenditure  on  land  and  sea  forces  amounted 
to  6j  millions,  which  would  be  equivalent,  in  present 
values,  to  from  52  to   58  millions. 

The  suppression  of  the  militia  and  the  creation  of 
a  standing  army  demanded  a  new  administration  ;  the 
old  administration  consisted  of  a  few  very  rudimentary 
central  bodies  known  as  prikazy,  which  were  directed 
by  boyars  who  had  received  from  the  Tsar  a  prikaz 
— that  is  to  say,  an  order  of  attendance.  The  local 
administration  was  confided  to  the  voievody  (from  the 
words  voin,  soldier,  and  vodit,  to  lead),  whose  name 
indicates  their  origin  and  their  function  ;  they  were 
civil  and  military  administrators  in  one.  The  voievody 
received  no  fixed  salary  from  the  State,  and  had  to 
"  maintain  themselves  (according  to  the  official  phrase) 
at  the  expense  of  the  population." 

This  system  of  administration,  based  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  local  militia,  was  not  adapted  to  the  new 
organization,  and  Peter  wished  to  replace  it  in  order 
to  centralize  the  military  machine,  and  above  all  its 
revenues . 

As  Sweden,  his  enemy,  appeared  to  him  the  most 
powerful  of  States,  and  owed,  or  so  he  believed,  her 
strength,  to  her  good  administration,  he  sent  thither 
a  foreigner  (Tick)  in  order  that  he  might  discover, 
buy,  or  at  need  steal,  information  as  to  the  administra- 

1  Dvor  means  a  court  or  yard,  and  signifies  a  family  or  an  economic 
peasant  unity. 


124  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

tive  institutions  of  Sweden.  Moreover,  he  took  into 
his  service  the  Silesian  Baron  Luberas,  of  whom  I 
have  already  made  mention,  and  who  had  the  reputation 
of  a  very  extensive  knowledge  of  Swedish  affairs. 

What  is  more,  he  was  able  to  initiate  himself  directly 
into  Swedish  methods  by  watching  them  at  work  in 
the  Baltic  provinces,  which  he  had  conquered.  One 
of  his  ukazes  ordered  the  adoption  of  these  methods 
in  certain  administrative  services. 

He  borrowed  also  from  other  Western  States.  After 
his  first  journey  to  Holland  he  created  the  ratashi  and 
bourmistry,  in  imitation  of  what  he  had  seen  there.  In 
i  7  14  he  wrote  to  his  "projector  " — that  is,  the  official 
who  elaborated  his  schemes  of  reform,  Soltykov  by 
name — that  he  was  to  send  him  "  the  laws  which  he 
had  extracted  from  the  English  and  other  European 
laws,  those  of  the  republics  excepted."  '  Among  the 
"  laws  "  which  Soltykov  sent  him  was  a  proposal 
relating  to  entail,  the  idea  of  which  was  borrowed 
from  England,  and  which  was  introduced  into  Russia 
under  the  modified  form  of  the  inalienability  and 
indivisibility  of  seigneurial  properties. 

But  as  a  source  of  inspiration  the  other  States  occu- 
pied only  a  secondary  place  ;  Sweden  was  the  model 
to  be  copied  and  faithfully  reproduced.  In  the  eyes 
of  the  Russian  Government  she  not  only  appeared 
worthy  of  becoming  an  object  of  emulation  on  account 
of  the  excellency  of  her  military  resources,  but  she 
was  also  the  only  country  in  Europe  in  which  the 
absolute  monarchy  had  finally  defeated  the  feudal 
system,  which  elsewhere  was  still  perceptible.  More- 
over, the  Swedish  administration  had  the  reputation 
of  being  the  best  of  its  period.  For  this  very  reason 
its  adaptation  to  Russia  was  a  highly  audacious  under- 
taking— perhaps  too  audacious. 

1  This  dislike  of  republicanism  was  manifested  by  an  earlier 
monarch,  Ivan  the  Terrible,  who,  despite  all  his  symptoms  of  Anglo- 
philia, interrupted  commercial  relations  with  England  because  "the 
English,  according  to  his  own  expression,  had  committed  a  very  evil 
deed :   they  had  put  their  king,  Charles,  to  death." 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION   OF  THE   STATE     125 

Peter  I  borrowed  from  Sweden  all  the  external  forms 
of  public  authority,  and  created  kollegii  (colleges)  to 
replace  the  old  prikazy  ;  and  the  Senate,  which  con- 
sisted originally  of  the  first  presidents  of  the  kollegii  ; 
the  gubematory  (governors)  administering  each  one 
of  the  eight  gabernii  into  which  Russia  was  divided, 
and  which  were  subdivided  into  provintsii  (provinces) 
and  distrikiy    (districts). 

His  ukases  more  than  once  indicate  that  "  the  in- 
structions and  regulations  "  according  to  which  the 
new  administration  was  to  function  were  to  be  drawn 
up  "  in  the  Swedish  fashion,"  or  "  with  certain  changes." 

While  he  was  replacing  the  old  governmental  machine, 
Peter  believed  it  necessary  to  replace  the  aristocratic 
hierarchy  by  a  bureaucratic  hierarchy.  In  1722  he 
promulgated,  in  a  ukase,  the  label  o  rangakh  (table 
of  ranks) — that  is,  the  scale  of  Ishin  (or  grades),  civil 
and  military,  in  which  nearly  all  the  names  of  the 
bureaucratic  posts  are  borrowed  from  the  Latin  or 
German    (kollejsky  assessor,   major,  etc.). 

Believing  that  one  "cannot  act  according  to  the 
books  alone,  for  in  these  all  circumstances  are  not 
foreseen,"  Peter  did  not  confine  himself  to  collecting 
foreign  laws  and  statutes.  In  Germany,  Bohemia,  and 
Holland  he  recruited  jurists,  writers,  and  administrators. 
Baron  von  Luberas  alone  engaged  no  less  than  150 
officials  to  enter  the  service  of  his  Government. 

Having  created  new  administrative  bodies,  with  new 
denominations,  having  replaced  the  Russian  names 
by  European  names,  Peter  believed  that  he  had 
Europeanized  the  Muscovite  State,  whose  capital, 
baptized  with  a  European  name,  he  had  removed, 
geographically,  towards  the  West.     But  he  was  deluded. 

To  his  thinking,  the  Senate,  constituted  in  1 7.1 1, 
should  have  seen  to  the  general  supervision  and  higher 
direction  of  affairs  of  State  ;  but  from  1 7 1 5  onwards 
he  was  obliged  to  subject  the  Senate  itself  to  the 
supervision  of  a  "  General  Reviser,"  whose  duty  it 
was  to  attend  the  sessions  of  the  Senate  and  to  denounce 


126  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

to  the  Tsar  those  of  its  members  who  were  neglecting 
their  duty.  Five  years  later  another  official  was 
appointed  to  see  that  in  the  Senate  "all  should  be 
done  properly,  and  that  there  should  be  no  babbling, 
shouting,  or  other  things."  He  had  to  note,  by  the 
aid  of  an  hour-glass,  if  the  deliberations  were  suffi- 
ciently prompt,  and  to  determine  their  duration.  A 
year  later,  as  he  was  not  sufficient  for  his  task,  he 
was  replaced  by  an  officer  of  the  Guard,  who  had 
the  right  to  arrest  senators  who  made  use  of  language 
unseemly  or  insulting  towards  their  colleagues.  At  the 
end  of  yet  another  year  the  Senate  was  finally 
subordinated  to  a  General-  prokuror  (Procurator- 
General),  in  whose  hands  it  became,  from  being  the 
highest  body  in  the  State,  a  mere  tool. 

The  history  of  the  Senate  and  the  other  institutions 
created  under  Peter  is  deplorable.  The  senators  and 
members  of  the  colleges  "  played  at  law  as  at  cards," 
and  "  mined  the  fortress  of  justice  "  (this  is  Peter's 
phrase),  applying  themselves  continually  to  theft  and 
intrigue,  and  to  quarrelling.  Nearly  all  the  high 
officials  disregarded  the  interests  of  the  State,  and 
thought  of  nothing  but  their  own.  At  one  session  of 
the  Senate,  toward  the  end  of  his  reign,  Peter,  when 
the  reports  of  their  dishonesty  were  read  to  him,  ordered 
the  immediate  publication  of  a  ukase  according  to  which 
any  person  who  stole  from  the  State  even  the  price  of 
a  rope  should  be  hanged.  His  favourite,  Yagujinsky, 
General  Procurator  of  the  Senate,  inquired  :  "  Does 
your  Majesty  wish  to  remain  Emperor  by  himself,  with- 
out any  subjects?  We  all  steal  ;  only  some  steal 
more  and  less  discreetly  than  others." 

The  condition  of  the  local  administrations  was  no 
better.  The  new  gubernatory  and  landraty  (from  the 
German  landrath),  in  spite  of  their  European  names, 
robbed  the  people  and  the  Treasury  as  thoroughly  as 
did  the  Muscovite  vo'ievody.  The  generals  and  other 
officers,  travelling  through  the  provinces,  beat  and 
plundered    the    civil    officials.       The    population,     im- 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION   OF  THE  STATE     127 

poverished  by  wars,  taxation,  and  rapine,  fled  into  the 
steppes  or  forests,  and  there  formed  bands  of  brigands. 
Peter  issued  ukase  after  ukase,  threatening  and 
chastising,  without  effecting  anything.  "  The  Peters- 
burg official,  the  general,  the  provincial  seigneur,  threw 
the  ukases  of  the  terrible  Reformer  out  of  the  window, 
and,  like  the  forest  brigand,  recked  little  that  there 
were  in  the  capital  an  absolute  Senate  and  nine  or 
ten  '  colleges,'  constituted  in  the  Swedish  manner, 
with  systematically  defined  attributions.  The  imposing 
exterior  of  legal  order  hid  a  general  disorder."  ' 

The  attempt  at  Europeanization  made  in  Peter's  reign 
failed,  we  must  remember,  because  it  coincided  with 
incessant  warfare.  Although  war  did  enforce  reforms, 
it  also  gave  them  an  accidental  and  provisional 
character.  The  aim  of  the  new  institutions  was  fiscal 
and  military  rather  than  social  and  political.  Of  the 
nine  colleges  created  in  1 7 1 8,  six  were  to  deal  with 
finances  and  military  and  foreign  affairs,  one  with 
justice,  and  two  with  trade  and  industry.  There  was 
no  department  of  the  higher  administration  to  watch 
over  the  interests  of  agriculture,  which  nevertheless 
was  the  principal  occupation  of  the  people.  The 
rural  population,  the  real  foundation  of  the  State,  was 
absolutely  neglected  by  the  Government,  which  sought 
rather  to  increase  the  power  of  the  nobles  over  the 
moujiks. 

The  condition  of  the  Russian  peasants,  which  had 
never  ceased  to  grow  worse  since  the  end  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  became  more  and  more  like  that  of 
the  agricultural  serfs  of  the  despotic  States  of  the 
East.  Peter  the  Great  did  not  attempt  to  improve 
it  ;  on  the  contrary.  Any  real  Europeanization  of 
Russia  was  therefore  impossible,  and  administrative 
reform  was   condemned  to   sterility. 

1  A  foreign  observer — Fokkerodt — wrote  a  book  upon  his  sojourn 
in  Russia,  in  the  reign  of  Peter  the  Great,  in  which  he  stated  that 
the  Tsar  despaired  of  reclaiming  his  officials,  and  therefore  determined 
to  exterminate  them  by  the  axe  and  the  gallows,  so  that  wholesale 
death  sentences  might  be  expected.     However,  Peter  died  first. 


128  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

II 

The  general  disorder  which  harassed  Peter  I  during 
the  last  years  of  his  life  persisted  and  increased  under 
his   immediate  successors. 

Peter  the  Great,  for  the  first  time  since  the  reign 
of  Ivan  the  Terrible,  realized  the  M  ideal  "  of  abso- 
lute autocracy.  In  one  of  his  laws  he  proclaimed 
that  "  his  Majesty  was  sovereign  and  autocratic.  It 
need  reckon  with  no  one  in  the  world."  He  crushed 
all  the  forces  which  might  have  opposed  him  ;  old 
boyar  families  were  exterminated;  the  patriarchate 
was  replaced  by  an  ecclesiastical  Chancellery  (Holy 
Synod),  subordinated  to  a  civil  official.  The  enforce- 
ment of  the  "table  of  ranks  "  was  intended  to  signify 
that  precedence  depended  not  on  birth,  but  exclu- 
sively on  the  grade  in  the  bureaucracy  occupied  by 
the  will  of  the  Tsar  or  his  mandatories.  The  trans- 
formation of  the  Tsarstvo  or  Tsardom  into  an  Empire 
and  the  Tsar  into  an  Emperor  rendered  the  rupture 
with  the  ancien  regime  still  more  evident.  The  Emperor 
concentred  in  his  person,  fully  and  conjointly,  the 
powers  of  the  State  ;  he  became  the  supreme  head 
of  the  army,  the  head  of  the  Church,  the  head  of 
the  bureaucratic  hierarchy. 

In  1 613  the  first  Romanov  was  etected  to  the  throne 
by  the  representatives  of  the  population.  After  this 
the  crown  was  transmitted  by  inheritance.  Peter  I, 
rejecting  the  two  principles  of  election  and  heredity, 
published  in  1721  a  ukase  asserting  the  Emperor's 
right  to  appoint  his  successor.  The  monarchical 
power  became  not  merely  absolute,  but  arbitrary  and 
personal . 

It  must,  however,  be  admitted  that  Peter  I  did  not 
employ  his  power  exclusively  for  his  own  advantage, 
but  for  the  good  of  the  State.  We  may  say  that  he 
often  applied  means  and  methods  which  were  those 
of  Asiatic  despotism  to  European  and  progressive  ends. 
His    successors    retained    these   methods,    but    to    attain 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION   OF  THE  STATE     129 

different  ends  ;  and  they  confounded  their  own  affairs 
completely  with  those  of  the  collectivity. 

An  absolute  monarch,  in  reality,  is  absolute  only  in 
name,  because  he  always  is  dependent  on  his  entourage, 
his  favourites,  or  his  guards.  This  truth  is  fully  con- 
firmed by  the  history  of  the  Russian  monarchy  in  the 
eighteenth  century.  Directly  the  principle  of  auto- 
cracy was  officially  proclaimed,  the  throne  fell  into  the 
hands  of  those  who  surrounded  it. 

On  the  night  of  the  28th  of  January,  1725,  while 
Peter  the  Great  lay  dying,  the  officers  of  the  regiments 
of  the  Guard  proclaimed  as  Empress  his  wife, 
Catherine  I,  thus  ruining  the  plans  of  the  high  officials, 
who  themselves  wished  to  find  Peter's  successor.  But 
the  bureaucracy  and  the  aristocracy  took  their  revenge 
by  persuading  Catherine  to  form  a  sort  of  oligarchical 
Government,  which  went  by  the  name  of  the  Superior 
Secret  Council  (in  1726).  At  the  instigation  of  the 
Council,  Catherine  left  the  succession  to  her  grand- 
son, Peter,  who  in  1727  became  the  Tsar  Peter  II. 
Three  years  later,  in  1730,  the  Superior  Secret  Council, 
with  the  aid  of  the  Guard,  raised  to  the  throne  the  niece 
of  Peter  I,  Anna  Ivanovna,  Duchess  of  Courland,  who, 
before  she  died,  chose  for  her  heir  Ivan  Antonovitch 
(aged  two  months),  to  be  known  as  Tsar  Ivan  VI  in 
1740.  Anna  Ivanovna  entrusted  her  favourite,  the 
famous  Biron,  with  the  regency.  But  a  fortnight  after 
the  death  of  the  Empress  the  mother  of  Ivan  VI, 
Anna  Leopoldovna,  Princess  of  Brunswick,  with  the 
aid  of  the  officers  and  men  of  the  Preobrijensky  regi- 
ment, started  a  palace  revolution,  deported  Biron,  and 
proclaimed  herself  Regent.  A  year  later  a  company 
of  the  same  regiment  effected  a  fresh  coup  d'etat, 
replaced  Anna  Leopoldovna  and  Ivan  VI  by  the 
daughter  oi  Peter  the  Great— Yelisaveta  Petrovna— 
who  reigned  for  twenty  years,  and  in  dying  transferred 
the  power  of  the  throne  to  her  nephew,  the  Duke  of 
Holstein-Gottorp,  Peter  III.  The  reign  of  this  prince 
was   very   brief  ;     at   the   end   of   six   months   his   wife 

9 


130  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

Catherine,  born  a  princess  of  Anhalt-Zerbst,  deposed 
him,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Guards,  and  assumed 
the  reins  of  power.  She  remained  on  the  throne  for 
thirty-four  years  (from  1762  to  1796),  leaving  the 
crown  to  Paul  I,  who  was  deposed  and  killed  in  1801 
by  the  officers  of  the  Guard. 

Europe  was  no  stranger  to  all  these  events.  Some- 
times her  inspiration  may  be  very  plainly  distinguished 
therein,  and  even  her  intervention  ;  of  this  there  is 
documentary  proof. 

In  1726  the  French  Ambassador  in  Petersburg, 
Campredon,  wrote  to  Versailles  that  the  Russian  aris- 
tocracy wished  to  diminish  the  personal  power  of 
Catherine  I  and  to  organize  the  Government  in  the 
English  manner.  The  same  opinion  was  expressed  in 
1730  by  the  Secretary  of  the  French  Embassy,  who 
stated  that  in  Moscow  men  were  speaking,  in  the  streets 
and  in  private,  of  the  British  Constitution  and  the 
rights  of  the  English  Parliament.  During  the  crisis 
of  1730  the  nobles  who  elected  Anna  Ivanovna  also 
desired  to  limit  the  absolute  power  of  the  throne,  and 
were  seeking  in  the  West  for  the  best  system  of  govern- 
ment. "  The  Constitutions  of  those  countries  glitter 
in  their  eyes  like  jewels  in  a  shop  window,  each  more 
beautiful  than  the  next,  and  among  them  all  they  do 
not  know  which  to  choose."  The  European  Ambas- 
sadors reported  that  there  were,  in  1730,  partisans 
among  the  nobles  of  the  parliamentary  monarchy  as 
in  England,  of  the  elective  monarchy  as  in  Poland, 
and  of  the  monarchy  sharing  its  power  with  an  aris- 
tocratic oligarchy  as  in  Sweden  ;  there  were  even 
republicans. 

The  Swedish  mode  won  the  day,  and  the  election  of 
Anna  Ivanovna  greatly  resembled  that  of  Ulrica 
Eleanora,  sister  of  Charles  XII,  Who  became  Queen 
of  Sweden  in  17 19.  The  Superior  Secret  Council, 
on  investing  Anna  with  the  power,  forced  her  to  sign 
the  "  points  "  which  limited  her  authority  and  sub- 
jected   her    enactments    to    the    approval    and    ratifica- 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION   OF   THE   STATE     131 

tion  of  the  Council.  Just  as  in  Sweden,  the  middle 
and  the  lesser  nobles  protested  against  the  usurpation 
of  the  high  aristocracy;  and  Anna  Ivanovna,  relying 
on  this  resistance,  tore  up  the  kondltzii  (conditions) 
which  had  been  imposed  upon  her.  As  for  this 
oligarchical  Constitution,  it  was  devised  after  the 
Swedish  model. 

As  to  the  material  participation  of  foreigners  in 
the  domestic  affairs  of  Russia,  politics,  the  palace 
revolution  of  1741  and  the  murder  of  Paul  I  in  1801 
offer  two  extremely  interesting  examples  of  such 
participation. 

Ill 

The  military  pronunciamento  which  solved  the  crisis 
of  1 74 1  lent  a  certain  greatness  to  a  mere  palace 
revolution.  It  was  an  expression  of  the  national  and 
patriotic  revolt  against  alien  interference  in  the 
government  of  the  country. 

As  I  have  already  remarked,  Peter  I  had  estab- 
lished connections  with  the  German  world.  The  con- 
quest of  the  Baltic  provinces  added  a  numerous  German 
population  to  the  Empire.  In  1 73  1 — that  is,  only  six 
years  after  Peter's  death — the  Russian  throne  was  occu- 
pied by  a  Duchess  of  Courland,  who  was  half  a  German. 
Anna  Ivanovna,  coming  to  Petersburg,  brought  with 
her  to  the  capital  her  whole  entourage,  composed  of 
Courlanders  and  Livonians. 

'  Distrusting  the  Russians,  Anna  placed  herself  under 
the  protection  of  a  crowd  of  foreigners  whom  she  had 
imported  from  Mitau  and  various  corners  of  Germany. 
The  Germans  spread  over  Russia  as  sweepings  escape 
from  a  torn  sack  ;  they  installed  themselves  in  a  crowd 
at  the  Imperial  Court,  encompassed  the  throne,  and 
slipped  into  all  the  lucrative  administrative  posts.  All 
this  motley  crew  was  composed  of  the  kleotoury 
.(creatures)  of  two  powerful  patrons  :  of  a  '  cur  of  a 
Courlander  '  who  had  but  one  talent — that  of  discover- 
ing   pedigree    dogs    (we   are   speaking   of   Biron),   and 


132  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

of  a  '  cur  of  a  Livonian,'  the  auxiliary  and  eventually 
the  rival  of  Biron — Count  Loewenwold,  oberstaltmeister, 
liar,  incurable  gambler,  and  peculator.  In  a  dissi- 
pated Court  which  had  no  other  occupation  than  the 
sumptuous  fetes  organized  by  another  Loewenwold,  the 
oberhofmarschall,  even  more  maleficent  than  his  brother, 
the  whole  crew  glutted  themselves,  gambling  with  the 
money  extracted  from  the  people  by  means  of  the 
bastinade.  It  was  not  without  reason  that  the 
maintenance  of  the  Court  cost,  under  Anna,  five  or 
six  times  as  much  as  under  Peter  I,  although  the 
revenues  of  the  State  had  not  increased^  but  had  rather 
diminished." 

The  German  bureaucrats,  according  to  the  same 
author — Klutshevsky — "  took  up  their  positions  round 
the  throne  like  hungry  cats  round  a  bowl  of  milk, 
and  subjected  the  Empire  to  the  most  abominable 
methods  of  oppression  :  executions,  deportations, 
torture,  and  persecution."  "■  The  Tartar  invasion 
repeated  itself,  only  this  time  it  came  not  from  the 
southern  steppes,   but  from  the  Russian  Capital." 

This  picture  resembles  those  drawn  in  their  reports 
by  the  foreign  Ambassadors  of  Anna's  reign  ;  they, 
too,  recorded  the  intolerable  insolence  of  the  favourites 
— German  favourites  and  bureaucrats — and  predicted 
a  revolution. 

An  anti-Germanic  movement  was  forming  among  the 
officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Guard  and  the  middle 
and  lesser  nobility.  Having  assisted  Anna  to  rid  her- 
self of  an  oligarchy  recruited  from  the  Russian  aris- 
tocracy, the  nobility  saw,  with  irritation  and  amaze- 
ment, the  results  of  its  fidelity  to  the  new  Empress 
turned  to  the  advantage  of  a  German  oligarchy.  The 
idea  of  a  coup  d'etat  very  naturally  entered  their 
minds,  and  the  conspirators  decided  to  place 
Yelisaveta  on  the  throne.  By  one  of  the  ironies 
of  history,  and  perhaps  its  justice  also,  the  daughter 
of  Peter  I,  who  in  his  lifetime  was  regarded  as  a 
"  foreigner  "   and   a   "  German,"   as   an   enemy   of   her 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION  OF  THE   STATE     133 

people,  became  the  incarnation  of  national  feeling  in 
revolt  against  the  Germanic  tyranny. 

But,  which  is  even  more  singular,  the  success  of 
this  undertaking  was  assured  by  the  support  of 
foreigners,  French  and  Swedish.  La  Chetardie,  the 
French  Ambassador,  Lestocq,  the  French  doctor,  and 
his  Swedish  colleague,  Nolken,  were  the  principal  motive 
forces  of  the  plot  against  the  birotiovshtshina  (the 
rule  of  Biron),  assisting  it  with  their  counsel  and  with 
pecuniary  support. 

It  may  seem  surprising  that  Sweden  should  have 
served  the  ambitions  of  the  daughter  of  Peter  the 
Great,  the  enemy  who  had  deprived  her  of  the  Baltic 
littoral.  The  fact  is  that  she  hoped  to  obtain  in  recom- 
pense for  her  assistance  the  restitution  of  a  portion  of 
her  former  territories  ;  and  Nolken  even  requested 
Yelisaveta  Pavlovna  to  engage  herself,  by  secret  treaty, 
"  always  to  defend  the  interests  of  Sweden."  There 
was  then  a  rivalry  between  Sweden  and  England,  the 
ally  of  Austria,  with  whom  neither  Sweden  nor  France 
was  on  good  terms.  Moreover,  these  two  Powers  feared 
the  economic  and  political  domination  in  Europe  of 
England,  and  particularly  in  Russia.  And  the  English 
Government  and  English  traders  were  buying  favour 
of  Biron  and  other  of  the  German  "  creatures." 

However,  the  Germanic  intrigue  was  not  completely 
defeated  by  the  accession  of  Yelisaveta,  who  confined 
herself  to  pensioning  some  of  the  most  notorious  of 
the  German  bureaucrats.  The  mutiny  of  a  regiment 
of  the  Guard  against  its  German  officers  was  severely 
repressed.  It  is  true  that  in  Yelisaveta's  immediate 
entourage  and  among  her  principal  political  advisers 
there  were  no  Germans,  but  in  choosing  as  her  successor 
Charles  Peter  Ulric,  Duke  of  Holstein,  Yelisaveta  was 
not  only  .leaving  the  crown  to  a  German,  but  was 
Germanizing  the  dynasty  :  the  Russian  House  of 
Romanov  was  from  that  moment  replaced  by  the  House 
of  Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp,  which  was  German  rather 
than  Russian.     Becoming  Tsar  under  the  name  of  Piotr 


134  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

Fedorovitch  (Peter  III),  the  Duke  of  Holstein  "could 
not  enlarge  his  narrow  Holsteiner  mind  to  the  measure 
of  the  vast  Empire  which  destiny  had  bestowed  upon 
him  ;  on  the  contrary,  once  on  the  Russian  throne,  he 
became  more  the  Holsteiner  than  he  had  been  at  home." 

He  sought  in  all  things  to  imitate  Frederick  II, 
King  of  Prussia  ;  but  such  a  model  was  too  mighty 
for  his  petty  faculties,  so  that  he  only  succeeded  in 
caricaturing  it.  He  bore  himself  like  a  Prussian 
soldier,  publicly  kissing  the  bust  of  Frederick  and 
kneeling  before  his  portrait  ;  he  wore  the  Prussian 
uniform,  which  he  imposed  on  the  Russian  Army  ;  he 
himself  mounted  guard  before  the  apartments  of 
Frederick's  Ambassador  in  token  of  his  respect  for 
his  master  ;  he  made  the  Russian  Army  the  guardian 
of  the  glory  and  the  benefits  acquired  by  the  King  of 
Prussia.  He  ordered  the  Holy  Synod  to  "  purify  the 
Russian  churches  " — that  is,  to  remove  the  ikons  (those 
of  Jesus  and  the  Virgin  excepted) — and  to  impose  on  the 
popes  the  costume  and  external  appearance  of  Lutheran 
pastors  ;  and  he  recruited  Prussian  soldiers  and 
corporals  in  order  to  form  a  private  Holsteiner  Guard. 

In  this  way  he  contrived  to  get  himself  dethroned, 
and,  a  week  later,  killed,  by  officers  of  the  Russian 
Guard. 

This  was  a  fresh  check  to  the  German  penetration 
of  Russia.  But  the  "  German  party  "  was  not 
destroyed.  It  merely  became  more  prudent,  and  was 
thus  able  to  increase  and  retain  its  privileges.  In 
the  Imperial  Court  the  names  of  the  dignitaries  even 
in  our  days  are  German  :  as  freiline  (fraiilein), 
Kcimmerfrau,  Kammer junker,  Kammerherr,  stallmeister ; 
hoftneister,  etc.  In  the  upper  civil  and  military 
bureaucracy  the  elements  of  German  origin  were,  and 
still  are,  very  numerous.  This  state  of  affairs  has 
been  summed  up  by  an  eminent  contemporary,  Emile 
Vandervelde,  in  the  following  sentence  :  "  Russia  is 
the  greatest  democracy  in  the  world,  ruled  by  a  small 
German  colony." 


THE    EUROPEANIZATION   OF  THE   STATE     135 

IV 

The  coup  d'etat  of  1801,  which  deprived  Paul  I 
of  his  throne  and  his  life,  was  not  the  retaliation  of 
patriotism,  as  was  the  fall  of  his  father,  Peter  III,  or 
the  elevation  to  the  throne  of  Yelisaveta.  But  foreign 
influence  played  a  very   large  part   in  it. 

The  Russian  nobility,  as  we  have  seen,  was  extremely 
dissatisfied  with  the  economic  policy  followed  by  Paul  I 
in  respect  of  England.  s<  The  rupture  with  England, 
which  was  injurious  to  the  material  interests  of  the 
nobility,  increased  its  hatred  of  Paul,  which  had  already 
been  whetted  by  a  cruel  despotism.  The  thought  of 
annihilating  Paul,  by  whatever  means,  became  almost 
general,"  writes  a  contemporary. 

But  the  foreign  policy  of  the  Tsar  was  still  more 
odious  to  the  English  Government  and  to  English  trade. 
This  explains  why  England,  in  the  person  of  the  English 
Ambassador,   was  involved   in  the  plot  against   Paul. 

'■'  English  diplomacy  did  all  it  could  to  overthrow 
Paul.  The  English  Ambassador  in  Petersburg,  Whit- 
worth,  took  an  active  part  in  the  first  conspiracy  against 
Paul  (the  plot  was  spun  in  the  spring  of  1800,  that 
is,  about  a  year  before  the  final  catastrophe)  .  .  . 
whose  very  form  was  '  English  '  :  Paul  was  to  have 
been  declared  insane,  as  George  III  of  England  was 
a  little  later  ;  and  Alexander  Pavlovitch  would  have 
become  Regent.  The  enterprise  was  so  far  decided 
upon  that  Panine  (in  touch  with  Whitworth  and  the 
leader  of  the  conspiracy)  was  already  inquiring  of 
foreign  diplomatists  as  to  the  forms  with  which  such1 
an  action  would  be  invested  abroad  ;  this  was  neces- 
sary, for  England,  a  parliamentary  State,  could  not 
furnish  Russia  with   any   juridical  precedent." 

And  the  failure,  or  rather  the  miscarriage,  of  the 
first  conspiracy,  according  to  the  same  historian,  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  Whitworth  had  left  Petersburg  ; 
but  from  abroad  he  still  remained  in  touch  with  the 
Russian  nobility,   Paul's  enemies,  and  continued  to  aid 


136  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

in  fostering  the  excitement  which  prepared  the  way 
for  the  second  conspiracy  and  the  violent  death  of 
the  sovereign. 

British  diplomacy  was  not  deceived  in  its  calcula- 
tions, for  the  overthrow  of  Paul  resulted  in  the  imme- 
diate "  reconciliation  of  Russia  with  England,"  as  Prince 
Adam  Czartoryski  remarks  in  his  Memoirs. 

Profitable  to  England,  the  death  of  Paul  was  by  no 
means  disadvantageous  to  Russia,  for  he  was  one  of 
the  worst  tyrants  known  to  history. 

One  might  add  that  by  contributing1,  on  this 
occasion,  to  the  deliverance  of  Russia,  England  made 
up,  to  some  extent,  for  the  support  which  she  had 
formerly  given  Biron  and  his  German  acolytes,  the 
exploiters  and  oppressors  of  the  Russian  people. 

Although  the  nobles  who  overthrew  Paul  I  received 
advice  and  perhaps  material  help  from  England,  the 
ideas  which  gave  birth  to  their  conspiracy  and  the 
pleas  in  its  favour  were  borrowed  from  France.  Certain 
memoirs  of  contemporary  Russian  nobles  endeavour  to 
justify  the  murder  of  the  tyrant  by  arguments  taken 
from  the  French  revolutionary  authors.  They  speak 
of  the  just  and  holy  hatred  of  tyranny  in  the  expressive 
language  of  the  sans-cul.ott.es,  ;  so  that  a  Russian  Con- 
servative, Count  Rostopshin,  jestingly  remarked  that 
in  Russia  the  aristocrats  had  aims  which  in  France 
were   the   speciality   of  cobblers. 

But,  as  we  shall  see,  this  comparison  is  not  exact. 


CHAPTER    III 

I.  The  renaissance  of  feudalism — Catherine  II  and  the  European 
sources  of  her  ideas.  II.  Attempts  to  Europeanize  Russia  under 
Alexander  I — Anglophilia — Central  institutions — Speransky  and 
his  French  loans.  III.  The  Decembrists — The  European  elements 
in  their  ideology  and  their  actions — The  Spanish  model — The 
reaction  of  Austro-German  origin — The  Baltic  nobles  crush  the 
insurrection  of  the  Decembrists. 


We  must  not  exaggerate  the  social  amplitude  or  political 
significance  of  those  "  revolutions  "  which  from  time 
to  time,  during  the  eighteenth  century,  shook  the  Russian 
throne.  Despite  all  the  violence  which  they  displayed, 
they  were  yet  limited  to  a  clash  between  the  central 
power  and  the  nobility,  and  the  great  masses  of  the 
people  did  not  take  part  in  them. 

Despite  their  phraseology,  often  extremely  demo- 
cratic, the  nobles  were  in  reality  contending  merely  for 
their  own  class  interests,  which  during  this  century 
achieved  an  increasingly  complete  supremacy.  In  the 
seventeenth  century  and  the  first  quarter  of  the 
eighteenth,  service  in  the  civil  or  military  administra- 
tion was  obligatory  for  the  nobility,  and  the  law  estab- 
lished two  categories  of  landed  property  as  affecting 
the  nobility  :  the  votschina  and  the  pomiestie.  The 
first  was  a  true  hereditary  estate,  the  second  was  merely 
a  benefice  of  which  the  Tsar  remained  the  proprietor, 
granting  the  usufruct  to  the  nobles  in  payment  for 
services.  In  1 73 1  the  nobility  obtained  a  ukase  which 
abolished  the  distinction  between  the  two  kinds  of 
property,  and  the  pomiestit,  with  the  peasants  attached 

137 


138  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

to  the  soil,  belonged  thenceforward  unconditionally  to 
their  holders.  In  1753,  under  Yelisaveta,  the  State 
undertook  the  material  support  of  the  nobility  and 
created  the  Nobles'  Bank  to  grant  them  credit  on 
favourable  terms.  But  these  privileges  did  not  satisfy 
them,  and  they  demanded  the  abolition  of  obligatory 
service.  Yelisaveta  gave  way,  and  in  a  manifesto, 
published  in  1762  by  her  successor,  Peter  III,  and 
known  as  "  the  Manifesto  concerning  the  liberty  of 
the  Nobility,"  exempted  the  nobility  from  service 
in  the  civil  administration  and  the  army,  so  that  what 
had  been  a  legal  obligation  was  now  only  a  moral 
duty.  From  that  time  the  dvorlanie  (nobles)  ceased  to 
be  the  serfs  of  the  State.  They  became  its  masters, 
for  about  this  time  they  themselves  had  realized  the 
advantages  attaching  to  the  possession  of  administra- 
tive posts  of  any  importance.  The  "  table  of  ranks  " 
remained  legally  in  force,  but  in  fact  the  bureaucratic 
hierarchy  began  to  correspond  with  the  aristocratic 
hierarchy,  with  its  "genealogical  books":  as  on  the 
one  hand  officials  who  had  reached  a  certain  grade 
obtained  a  title  of  nobility,  while  on  the  other  hand  the 
nobility  reserved  for  itself  the  majority  of  the  higher 
posts,  so  that  the  "  table  of  ranks  "  lost  the  character 
which  Peter  the  Great  had  wished  it  to  preserve,  and 
little  by  little  became,  at  least  in  respect  of  its  higher 
grades,  a  fresh  means  of  reinforcing  the  power  of  the 
nobility. 

The  seigneurs,  absolute  and  irresponsible  masters 
of  their  serfs  in  their  pomiesties,  dealt  with  affairs  of 
State  in  the  same  spirit.  The  administration  of  the 
Empire  resembled  that  of  a  seigneurial  domain.  Public 
interest  was  assimilated  to  private  interest  in  that  the 
officials  whose  duty  it  was  to  watch  over  it  subordi- 
nated it  to  their  personal  aspirations  and  made  use 
of  it  to  enrich  themselves.  All  other  classes — the 
bourgeoisie,  higher  and  lower,  the  peasantry,  and  the 
clergy — were  regarded  as  inferior  to  the  nobility. 
Russia  had  become  a  State  of  nobles. 


THE  EUROPEANIZATION  OF  THE  STATE    139 

II 

In  one  of  the  chapters  of  the  first  Part  of  this  book 
I  have  demonstrated  that  the  increasing  power  of  the 
nobility  was  opposed  to  the  economic  evolution  of  the 
country,  and  also  checked  the  development  of  capitalistic 
industry.  From  the  third  quarter  of  the  eighteenth 
century  an  opposition  between  the  economic  tendencies 
and  the  political  forms  of  the  State  became  increasingly 
apparent. 

Moreover,  the  peasants,  exploited  by  the  nobles, 
began  to  grow  impatient.  As  early  as  the  reign  of 
Yelisaveta  a  series  of  disturbances  broke  out  in  the 
midst  of  the  rural  population. 

All  these  disorders  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other 
the  invasion  of  European  ideas,  impelled  the  Govern- 
ment of   Catherine   II   to  attempt   certain   reforms. 

As  to  the  foreign  inspiration  of  Catherine's  ideas, 
modern  historians  have  discovered  that  it  was  far  more 
extensive,  although  far  more  superficial,  than  was 
formerly  supposed.  It  has  been  proved  that  the  most 
important  political  work  of  this  sovereign,  that  known 
as  the  Nakaz,  was  merely  a  systematic  plagiarism  of 
Montesquieu's  Esprit  des  Lois.  M.  Pokrovsky  states 
that  Catherine  simply  stole  from  Montesquieu.  M. 
Haumant,  more  chivalrous  in  his  dealings  with  this 
crowned  head,  expresses  the  same  opinion  with  more 
politeness.  "  Indeed,"  he  says,  "  in  the  Nakaz  it  is 
Montesquieu  who,  wielding  the  pen  of  Catherine,  treats 
of  government,  of  justice,  of  the  rights  of  the  citizen — 
excepting  when,  as  occasionally,  it  is  his  disciple 
Beccaria." 

Catherine  wrote  her  Nakaz  (Instructions)  so  that 
it  might  serve  as  instructions  to  the  Commission  which 
was  to  elaborate  the  new  code  of  laws  ;  a  Commission 
invoked  by  her  in  1767,  again  under  the  impulse  of 
Western  Liberalism.  This  body  was  composed  of 
delegates  of  the  various  classes  of  society,  the  clergy 
and    the    peasantry    excepted.      This    exclusion    of    the 


140  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

peasantry  shows  that  the  Government's  views  were  not 
sufficiently  broad  to  assure  all  citizens  of  the  possibility 
of  making  audible  their  complaints  and  their  desires,. 

The  labours  of  the  Commission,  whose  members, 
coming  from  various  regions  of  Russia,  presented  the 
nakazy  of  their  electors,  brought  to  light,  in  the  first 
place,  a  conflict  between  the  nobility  and  the  bourgeoisie 
of  the  cities,  the  latter  being  prejudiced  by  the  privi- 
leges of  the  former,  and,  secondly,  the  fact  that  the 
nobles  themselves  were  not  satisfied  with  the  situation, 
but  desired  to  extend  their  rights  by  limiting  the  power 
of  the  monarch.  Severe  criticism  was  expressed  by 
the  members  of  the  Commission,  and  Catherine  replied 
by  dissolving  the  assembly.  Thus  died,  before  it  had 
really  entered  upon  life,  this  feeble  imitation  of  the 
States  General  of  France. 

This  brief  incident  shows  how  far  Russia  then  differed 
from  France.  The  convocation  of  the  States  General 
in  France  led  to  the  revolutionary  movement  and  the 
end  of  the  monarchy  ;  the  rapid  dissolution  of  the 
Commission  of  1767,  on  the  other  hand,  proves  that  in 
Russia  the  monarchical  power  won  the  day  against 
the  forces  which  might  have  become  hostile  to  it.  In 
France  the  Third  Estate,  having  become  economically 
stronger  than  the  noblesse,  was  in  a  position  to  seize 
upon  the  political  reins  also  ;  whereas  in  Russia  the 
noblesse,  economically  and  politically,  kept  the  upper 
hand.  The  last  States  General  convoked  in  France 
resulted  in  a  clash  between  the  Third  Estate  and  the 
nobility,  which  was  supported  by  the  power  of  royalty  ; 
the  Russian  Commission  of  1767  betrayed  only  the 
most  superficial  disagreement  between  the  nobility  and 
absolutism. 

The  dissolution  of  the  Commission  irritated  the 
nobles  ;  but  a  social  and  political  danger  made  its 
appearance,  which  suddenly  reconciled  them  with  the 
central  power  :  the  insurrection  directed  against  them 
both  by  the  Cossacks  and  the  peasants,  led  by  Yemelian 
Pugatshev,  during  the  years    177,3-7$. 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION  OF  THE   STATE     141 

Pugatshev's  rising  had  nothing  anti-monarchical 
about  it  ;  indeed,  its  leader,  in  order  to  gain  the 
sympathies  of  the  population,  assumed  the  title  of  the 
Tsar  Peter  III  (who  had  been  deposed  and  put  to 
death  by  Catherine  IPs  supporters).  The  Cossacks 
and  peasants  led  by  him  rose  against  the  Empress  in 
the  name  of  the  "  lawful  Tsar  "  ;  another  dissimilarity 
to  the  beginnings  of  the  French  Revolution,  in  which 
the   republican  tendencies  were  so  evident. 

But  the  Pugatshevshtstiina  had  well-defined  social 
aims  :  it  was  directed  against  the  nobles,  of  whom 
more  than  fourteen  hundred  (according  to  the  official 
figures)  were  hanged  by  Pugatshev  and  his  partisans. 

Catherine  had  reasons  for  fearing  this  revolt.  She 
herself  had  aggravated  the  economical  and  legal  con- 
ditions of  the  peasants ;  by  one  of  her  ukases  she 
forbade  serfs  to  lodge  complaints  against  their  masters 
in  the  courts  or  with  the  Government.  This  inhuman 
measure  dated  from  1767 — that  is,  the  very  year  in 
which  the  Empress  convoked  the  famous  Commission 
which  was  to  elaborate  the  new  code,  and  copied,  ^n 
her  manuscript  books,  the  liberal  propositions  of  the 
French  Encyclopaedists.  Three  delegates  sent  to 
Petersburg,  despite  the  prohibition,  by  serfs  employed 
in  provincial  industries,  in  order  to  lodge  complaints 
against  those  who  were  exploiting  them  and  torturing 
them,  were  cruelly  punished,  each  receiving  a  hundred 
blows  of  the  knout,  after  which  their  noses  were  burned 
with  hot  irons  and  they  were  deported  to  Siberia  for  life. 

While  discussing  lofty  problems  of  justice  and  liberty 
with  the  French  philosophers,  Catherine  extended  serf- 
dom, introducing  it  in  regions  in  which  it  had  never 
yet  existed  (in  the  Ukraine).  She  distributed  lands 
with  the  peasants  dwelling  thereon  to  many  of  her 
favourites.  She  was  thus  personally  interested  in  the 
regime  against  which  Pugatshev  had  taken  up  arms. 
The  Pugatshevshtshina  reconciled  her  with  that  portion 
of  the  nobility  which  the  fate  of  the  Commission  inclined 
to  rebellion.     In  face  of  the  danger  threatening  them, 


142  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

peasants,  nobles,  and  the  autocracy  were  united.  The 
phraseology  of  the  "  cobblers  "  was  quickly  rejected 
by  the  alarmed  nobles. 

Later  on  it  was  the  French  Revolution  which  gave 
the  masters  of  Russia  another  lesson  of  the  same  kind. 
The  schemes  of  liberal  reform  were  finally  forgotten  by 
Catherine,  and  the  country,  at  the  end  of  her  reign, 
retained  the  same  seigneurial  regime  as  before  her 
time.  It  is  true  that  Catherine  II  wished  to  make 
certain  concessions  to  the  middle-class  citizen,  and  she 
published,  in  1785,  the  "  Charter  granted  to  the  Cities," 
which  enabled  them  to  elect  municipal  councils  or  dutmy. 
But  these  dumy  had  no  real  power  and  no  real  rights  ; 
they  were  empowered  and  intended  merely  to  super- 
vise the  incidence  and  collection  of  the  taxes,  whose 
tariff  was  determined  not  by  them,  but  by  the  Govern- 
ment. The  sovereign  authority,  on  the  other  hand, 
became  still  more  powerful.  The  number  of  the 
governors  increased,  and  their  powers  were  extended, 
under  Catherine  II,  who  created  new  gubernii,  and 
then  a  mass  of  administrative  and  judicial  machinery 
in  each  guberniya  ;  the  gubernskoye  pravlenle  for 
general  administration,  the  kazennaya  palata  (fiscal 
chamber),  and  the  kaznatsheistvo  (treasury),  and  certain 
general  and  special  tribunals.  This  system  brought 
a  certain  external  order  into  the  working  of  the 
machinery  of  oppression,  and  it  subsisted  into  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  until  the  "  Period 
of  the  Great  Reforms,"  under  Alexander  II.  But  at 
bottom  it  was  half-bureaucratic,  half -feudal.  The 
governors,  officially  termed  "  masters  of  the  guber- 
niya"  justified  their  title  by  exercising  an  absolute 
power,  and  the  memory  of  the  "  satraps  of  Catherine  ' 
is  even  yet  not  extinct.  These  officials  were  selected 
from  among  the  noble  seigneurs. 

The  nobility  also  obtained  a  "  charter  '  from 
Catherine  ;  it  bore  no  resemblance  whatever  to  the 
charter  of  the  cities,  but  completed  the  emancipation 
of  the   nobility,   which   was   commenced   by   the  mani- 


THE  EUROPEANIZATION   OF  THE   STATE     143 

festo  of  1762.  Finally  liberated  from  all  responsi- 
bility toward  the  State,  it  was  endowed  with  a 
corporative  Constitution,  with  the  faculty  of  forming, 
in  each  guberniya,  a  privileged  body,  and  the  right 
of  representation  in  all  the  various  administrative 
bodies.  It  therefore  shared  with  the  Crown  in  the 
direction  of  affairs. 

Such  were  the  reforms  of  Catherine,  the  pupil  of 
Voltaire,  Diderot,  and  Montesquieu.  Such  was  the 
orientation  of  the  life  of  the  Russian  Empire  at  the 
precise  moment  when  the  noblesse  of  France  was  on 
the  eve  of  losing  ail  its  privileges  and  the  French 
people  was   changing  the  monarchy  for  a  Republic. 

II 

A  few  changes  of  form  Were  thus  introduced  in  the 
local  administrations,  but  Catherine  left  intact  the  entire 
central  organism  of  the  Empire  and  its  entire  social 
basis.  Yet  she  herself  perfectly  well  understood  that 
it  was  precisely  here  that  the  real  Europeanization  of 
the  Government  must  commence. 

The  principal  peculiarity  of  the  modern  European 
State,  which  distinguishes  it  from  the  feudal  State- 
domain,  in  which  the  private  interest  of  the  master 
replaces  the  public  interest,  and  of  the  Asiatic  .despotism, 
in  which  the  personal  will  of  the  sovereign  is  above 
all  laws,  consists  precisely  in  the  fact  that  its  legisla- 
tion is  not  subject  to  the  arbitrary  will  of  an  absolute 
monarch.  This  principle  was  still  unknown  to  the 
Russian  Empire  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

Catherine  II  wished  to  remedy  this  grave  defect. 
She  devotes  a  page  of  her  Nakaz  to  proving  the  neces- 
sity of  establishing  a  juridical  distinction  between  a 
law,  which  is  a  stable  disposition,  and  a  ukase,  which 
it  issued  on  account  of  a  particular  and  ephemeral 
need.  In  order  that  the  laws  should  derive  from  another 
source  than  the  Governmental  decrees,  it  was  therefore 
necessary  to  create  legislative  institutions.  Catherine  II 
did  nothing  of  the  kind  ;    she  maintained  the  omnipo- 


144  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

tence  of  the  autocrat,  the  legislator,  and  the  master  of 
the  Government.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  the  Empire 
was  inferior  to  the  Muscovite  zemstvo  of  the  sixteenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries,  which  comprised  a  Boyars\ka'iya 
(Council  of  Boyars)  entrusted  with  the  preparation 
of  new  laws,  and  the  Zemskie  Sobory  (territorial 
assemblies),  to  which  the  representatives  of  the  various 
provinces  were  convoked  from  time  to  time  in  order 
to  discuss  the  principal  problems  of  legislation. 

Catherine's  successor  was  completely  hostile  to  all 
ideas  of  national  representation.1  He  preferred  to 
govern  by  means  of  ukases,  issued  at  random,  which 
dealt  with  the  most  important  affairs  of  State  and  the 
pettiest  questions  of  private  life,  conditioning  even  the 
shape  of  hats  or  carriages.  The  permanent  interven- 
tion of  the  supreme  power  contributed  greatly  to 
increase  the  hatred  felt  for  it  by  its  subjects. 
Alexander  I  had  to  devote  several  months  to  issuing 
a  series  of  ukases  annulling  those  of  his  predecessor. 

Then  Alexander  I  and  his  collaborators  began  to 
elaborate  schemes  of  reform.  The  necessity  of  re- 
establishing the  alliance  with  England  having  been  one 
of  the  principal  causes  of  the  fall  of  Paul  I,  his  son, 
at  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  displayed  a  certain  degree 
of  Anglophilia,  under  the  influence  of  his  "  young 
friends,"  Novossiltsev  and  Kotshubey.  There  was  some 
question  of  creating  a  House  of  Lords  and  a  respon- 
sible Ministry,  after  the  English  pattern.  The  celebrated 
English  jurist,  Jeremy  Bentham,  was  asked  f  of  his  advice. 

But  in  place  of  a  House  of  Lords  the  year  1801  saXv; 
the  birth  of  a  Permanent  Council  (Nepremenny  Soviet), 
appointed  by  the  Emperor,  whose  mission  was  "  to, 
establish  the  power  and  the  prosperity  of  the  Empire 
on   the   immovable   foundation  of  the   law."      He   also 

1  The  following  fact  proves  the  strength  of  this  hostility  :  Paul  I 
undertook  a  journey  in  the  east  of  Russia  in  the  company  of  a  member 
of  his  suite,  who  showed  him  a  wood,  saying,  "  Your  Majesty,  these 
are  the  first  representatives  of  the  forests  of  the  Ural."  Paul  was 
so  offended  by  the  phrase  that  he  disgraced  the  person  who  had 
employed  it. 


THE  EUROPEANIZATION  OF  THE  STATE     145 

created  responsible  Ministries,  but  they  were  respon- 
sible only  to  the  Emperor.  The  Senate,  in  1802, 
obtained  the  right  to  make  "  representations  "  to  the 
Emperor  respecting  defective  laws  and  ukases;  but 
when  it  ventured  to  make  use  of  this  privilege  the 
Emperor  appeared  to  be  so  greatly  displeased  that  it 
did  not  repeat  the  experiment.  The  first  years  of 
Alexander's  reign  did  no  more  than  introduce  a  few 
superficial   modifications    of   the    bureaucratic   machine. 

In  reality,  a  fancy  for  reform  and  the  real  aspirations 
of  the  absolute  power  were  irreconcilable.  "  Alexander 
positively  desired  that  the  ministers  should  be  respon- 
sible. '  But  if  a  minister  refused  to  countersign  a  ukase 
of  your  Majesty's,'  some  one  objected,  '  would  that 
ukase  nevertheless  be  valid?  '  '  Certainly,'  he  replied; 
4  my  ukase  must  in  any  case  be  executed.'  That  is  how 
he  conceived  responsibility."  l 

Ten  years  later  Alexander  was  attacked  by  a  fresh 
access  of  the  reforming  fever,  and  entrusted  Speransky 
with  the  preparation  of  a  scheme  of  complete  renovation 
as  regards  the  central  institutions  of  the  State.  An 
admirer  of  Napoleonic  France,  Speransky  borrowed 
therefrom  nearly  all  the  essential  elements  of  his  struc- 
ture. He  admitted  the  principle  of  the  separation  of 
powers,  concentrated  the  executive  in  the  hands  of  the 
Council  of  Ministers,  referred  the  judicial  power  to  the 
Senate  and  the  legislative  power  to  a  State  Duma 
(Gosudarstvennaiya  Duma),  consisting  of  deputies 
elected  according  to  the  principles  of  the  French 
Constitution  of   the   year  VIII. 

This  system  was  fairly  favourable  to  the  bourgeois 
influences  in  social  and  economic  life.  A  modern  his- 
torian even  regards  Speransky  as  "  the  interpreter  of  a 
bourgeoisie  enriched  by  the  Continental  Blockade,  and 
aspiring  to  overthrow  the  autocracy  and  the  privileges 
of  the  nobles  by  means  of  a  Constitution."    It  is  to  be 

'  A.  Pypine,  Member  of  the  Imperial  Acack-my  of  Petersburg,  The 
Social  Movement  in  Russia  under  Alexander  I,  3rd  ed.  (Petersburg, 
1900),  p.  118. 

10 


146  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

remarked,  by  the  way,  that  it  was  under  Alexander  I 
that  the  bourgeoisie  was  finally  permitted  to  buy  landed 
property,  a  privilege  previously  confined  to  the  nobles. 

But  the  "  Third  Estate  "  of  Russia  once  more  proved 
too  weak  to  despoil  the  nobility,  and  Speransky's  plan 
was    executed   only  very   imperfectly. 

The  State  Duma  projected  by  him,  although  con- 
sultative and  deprived  of  any  right  of  initiative,  seemed 
too  dangerous  to  the  autocracy,  and  a  Council  of 
State  only  was  established  (Gosudarstvennyi  Soviet), 
appointed  by  the  Emperor.  According  to  Speransky, 
the  legal  decisions  of  this  Council  were  to  possess  the 
force  of  law  only  after  the  approbation  of  the  Emperor, 
while  the  Imperial  ordinances,  issued  in  the  form  of 
ukases,  could  not  be  regarded  as  laws.  But  Alexander 
never  regarded  himself  as  bound  by  the  decisions  of  the 
Council  ;  very  often  he  approved  of  the  recommenda- 
tions not  of  the  majority  but  the  minority,  and  some- 
times he  would  even  take  the  part  of  a  single  member 
against  all  the  rest,  annulling  the  entire  work  of  the 
Assembly  by  a  stroke  of  the  pen. 

Toward  the  end  of  his  reign  the  role  of  the  Council 
of  State  was  reduced  to  the  vanishing-point,  and  the 
Council  of  Ministers  possessed  itself  of  the  entire  legis- 
lative power,  submitting  directly  to  the  Imperial  appro- 
bation measures  which  should  have  been  passed  by 
the  Council  of  State. 

After  1 8 1  5  the  spirit  of  reaction  finally  got  the  upper 
hand,  raising  to  power  a  brutal  and  unintelligent  man, 
the  cruel  Count  Araktsheev.  The  official  attempt  to  re- 
organize and  Europeanize  the  State  was  thus  check- 
mated. "  Russian  progress  does  not  follow  a  straight 
line,  but  zigzags,"  and  "  the  fair  commencement  of  the 
days  of  Alexander  "  ended  in  a  gloomy  regression. 

Ill 

The  power  of  the  State  continually  failing  to  realize 
any  real  amelioration  of  the  political  system,  the 
Liberals  and  progressives  endeavoured  to  make  up  for 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION   OF  THE   STATE     147 

its  deficiencies.  The  solution  adopted  by  the  Decem- 
brists was  more  radical  than  that  of  the  "  young 
friends  "  of  Alexander  and  Speransky.  Instead  of  a' 
subtle  distinction  between  a  "  law  "  and  a  "  ukase," 
between  a  legal  measure  voted  by  the  Council  of  Empire 
and  a  personal  decree  of  the  sovereign's,  they  intended 
to  evade  even  the  possibility  of  a  conflict  between  the 
two  authorities,  and  to  confine  legislation  to  one  single 
and  constitutional  source. 

The  Decembrists  sought  models  in  Europe  ;  their 
projects  for  a  constitutziya  (constitution)  were  copied 
from  Western  institutions. 

The  more  modern  were  borrowed  from  England. 
That  of  Nikita  Muraviev  consisted,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  his  comrade  Yakushkin,  of  "an  abridged 
reproduction  of  the  British  Constitution."  Some  his- 
torians assert  (and  M.  Emile  Haumant  repeats  in  his 
Culture  f ran  false  en  Russle)  that  the  partisans  of  Nikita 
Muraviev  had  obtained  the  essential  points  of  their 
system  from  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  "  The  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  furnished  most  of  the 
articles  relating  to  the  power  of  the  prince."  This  is 
an  obvious  error,  for  the  United  States  knew  nothing  of 
the  "  power  of  the  prince,"  so  could  not  afford  any 
precedent  on  this  point.  A  contemporary  says  of 
Muraviev's  project:  "Admitting  the  monarchical  form 
of  government,  it  differed  fundamentally  from  the 
American  Constitution  in  the  aristocratic  principle  of  its 
franchise.  .  ...  It  granted  the  enjoyment  of  political 
rights  to  a  fairly  considerable  franchise  as  regards 
eligibility,  and  a  smaller,  but  still  indispensable  rating, 
as  regards  the  electorate."  It  was,  therefore,  not  from 
the  American  Constitution  that  the  moderate  Decem- 
brists obtained  the  fundamental  elements  of  their  own 
project,  but  only  its  details.  For  the  general  provisions  of 
the  scheme  it  was  always  to  England  that  they  applied. 

Nikita  Muraviev  even  placed  under  contribution  some 
articles  of  the  Spanish  Constitution  of  1812,  this  being 
at  the  time  the  newest,  although  its  origins  went  back 


148  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

to  the  French  Constitution  of  1791  and  the  Declaration 
of  Rights. 

His   comrades,   more  radical,  having   Pestel  at  their 
head,    were    the   immediate   pupils   of   France.      Pestel 
followed  Destutt   de   Tracy   step  by   step  ;    to   him  he 
owed    all    that    was    essential    in    his    conceptions, ;     a 
strongly  pronounced   republicanism,  an  absolute  rejec- 
tion   of   hereditary   monarchy,    and   governmental   cen- 
tralization.     In   France  also  he  found  an  organization 
of    the    powers    of    the    State    suited    to    his    Russian 
Republic:     a    Directory    resembling   that    of    the    year 
III,    two    legislative    assemblies,    like    the    Council    of 
Ancients  and  the  Five  Hundred,  judicial  institutions,  etc. 
The   Decembrists  were  the  disciples  of  Europe  also 
in  the  matter  of  the  means  by  which  they  should  attain 
their  ends.     The  political  societies  which  they  founded 
reproduced  the   European  models  which  those  of  their 
party  who  had  served  in  the  last  wars  against  France 
had  learned  to  know  in  the  West.     The  statutes  which 
they  drafted  were  an  adaptation,  sometimes  an  almost 
literal  translation,  of  those  of  the  German  J ugendbund . 
Naturally,  the  Decembrist  associations,  being  illegal  and 
revolutionary,  had  no  other  resemblance  to  the  Jugend- 
bund,   which  was   legal  and   conservative,   having  been 
formed    "  to   support    the    throne   of   the    sovereign    of 
Prussia    and   the    House    of    Hohenzollern   against    the 
immoral  spirit  of  the  period  " — that  is,  the  revolutionary 
spirit.      This  is  why  the  Decembrists,  while  borrowing 
the    phrasing   of  their   statutes    from    the   Jugendbundy 
borrowed  the   spirit  of  their  activity  from  Republican 
France   and  her  institutions. 

They  were  particularly  impressed  by  the  Spanish 
revolutionary  movement,  which  was  directed,  like  their 
own,  by  officers.  The  leader  of  the  military  rising  of 
1820,  General  Riego,  who  was  executed,  was  for  them 
a  "  holy  martyr,"  and  they  distributed  his  portrait  in 
Petersburg  in  a  spirit  of  propaganda.  The  history  of 
Spain  filled  some  Russian  Liberals  with  hatred  of  the 
monarchy   and    attached   them   to    the    Republic.      The 


THE  EUROPE ANIZATION  OF  THE   STATE     149 

author  of  one  of  the  projected  Constitutions,  Count 
Dmitriev  Momanov,  wrote  that  the  Spanish  system  was 
a  very  wise  one,  but  was  not  entirely  suited  to  Russia, 
since  it  retained  the  monarchical  principle.  "  iWhat  has 
become  of  the  members  of  the  Cortes?  "  he  asks  indig- 
nantly. "  They  were  deported,  tortured,  condemned  to 
death— and  by  whom?  By  an  animal  for  whom  they 
had  preserved  the  crown." 

M.  Haumant  reproaches  the  Decembrists  with  not 
having  reckoned  sufficiently  with  the  spirit  of  the  public, 
which  was  not  ready  for  the  transformations  imagined 
by  them,  and  with  having  sought  "  to  transplant  France 
into  Russia."  This  reproach  is  not  merited,  for  the 
Decembrists  made  many  concessions  to  the  ideas  and 
conditions  then  prevailing,  and  even  to  the  interests  of 
the  nobles,  to  which  class  they  belonged.  Other  modern 
historians  accuse  the  Decembrists  of  having  been  too 
moderate  in  the  social  department  of  their  programme. 

What  is  certain  is  that  the  love  of  country  animated 
the  Decembrists  and  guided  all  their  aspirations.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  reactionary  policy  which  they  were 
fighting  so  ardently  was  truly  inimical  to  the  nation, 
hindering  its  development,  and  was  only  too  often  h> 
spired  by  alien  influences,  as  is  very  clearly  demon- 
strated by  the  Russian  academician,  A.  Pypine,  in  his 
excellent  work  on  The  Social  Movement  in  Russia  under 
Alexander  I . 

"  Shortly  after  the  Congress  of  Vienna  the  peoples 
emerged  from  their  enchantment.  Instead  of  free  insti- 
tutions the  reaction  created  that  '  policeman's  State  ' 
which,  says  a  German  writer,  '  knew  nothing  of  citizens 
dwelling  in  a  fatherland,  but  merely  ruled  herds  which 
were  brutish  as  domestic  cattle.'  This  form  of  '  police- 
man's State  '  had  long  been  established  in  Germany  and 
Austria.  During  the  later  years  of  Alexander's  reign  an 
attempt  was  made  to  extend  it  to  Russia  ;  the  pro- 
cedures and  the  language  which  this  form  of  government 
had  invented  were  adopted,  and  were  for  a  long  time  to 
maintain   themselves  intact  in  our  country.     After  the 


150  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

Congress  of  Vienna,  Alexander  was  surrounded  by  the 
inspirations  and  the  secret  counsels  of  the  German  reac- 
tionaries.  .    .   .   Hatred   of  popular  liberty  reached  an 
especial  development  in  Austria.     In  Vienna  the  aristo- 
cratic  reaction  was  hatching  its  schemes.     Metternich 
and  his  right  hand,  Geuz,  invented  a  theory  of  reaction  ; 
and  the  house  of  the  Russian  Ambassador,  A.  Razou- 
movsky,   became,  among  others,  an  asylum  for  aristo- 
crats from  all  parts  of  Europe.     The  higher  circles  of 
Russian    society,    which    prided    itself    on    its    political 
influence,  and  liked  to  think  itself  a  power  in  European 
affairs,    readily    absorbed    the    ideas    of    the    Austrian 
feudalists     and     the     French     emigres.   .   ,.   .   Austrian 
diplomacy,    as   early   as    1813,   was    suspicious   of    the 
democratic    movement    in    Prussia.   .   ■.   .   The   King   of 
Prussia  readily  assented  to  these  suggestions,  and  even 
went  beyond  them.   .   ..   .  tWe  know,  on  the  other  hand, 
what   were  the  opinions  of  the  French  Emperor,   who 
could  not   suffer  the   word   '  constitution,'   even  in   the 
medical    sense.      Such    were    the    men    to    whom    the 
Emperor   Alexander   joined  himself  to   form  the   Holy 
Alliance.   .  ..   .   tWe   will  not  enter  into  the   detail's   of 
the   ways   in   which  the   European   reaction  crept   into 
Alexander's  mind  ;    it  is  enough  to  say  that  by   1820 
he   shared  its   views,  and  the  last   years   of  his    reign 
presented    a   strange   imitation    of   the    measures    then 
invented   by  the   German   '  policeman's   State  '  against 
pretended    conspiracies    and    an    imaginary    spirit    of 
revolution."  « 

The  work  of  the  external  reaction  was  reinforced 
internally  by  that  of  the  aristocrats  and  the  foreign 
bureaucrats  in  general  and  the  German  bureaucrats  in 
particular.  Even  during  the  war  of  181 2  certain 
Russians  were  annoyed  by  the  preponderating  power 
exerted  by  the  aliens  in  Alexander's  immediate 
entourage,  and  by  the  German  generals  in  particular, 
certain  of  whom  were  thoroughly  incapable,  like  the 
famous   General   Pfuhl,  of  whom  Tolstoi  gives  us   so 

1  A.  Pypine,  op.  cit.  pp.  431-33. 


THE  EUROPEANIZATION  OF  THE   STATE     151 

living  a  portrait  in  his  War  and  Peace.  This  clearly 
explains  the  ultra-nationalistic  traits  to  be  found  in 
the  projected  Constitutions  of  the  Russian  Liberals 
and  Radicals  of  Alexander's  reign.  Thus  Dmitriev- 
Mamonov  held  that  the  members  of  the  House  of 
Lords  which  he  considered  necessary  should  be  of  the 
Graeco-Russian  faith,  and  none  were  to  be  elected  to 
the  second  chamber  but  Russians,  members  of  the 
Orthodox  Church.  The  Order  of  the  Knights  of  Russia, 
the  precursor  of  the  Decembrist  societies,  aimed,  among 
other  things,  at  "  depriving  foreigners  of  all  influence 
in  affairs  of  State,"  and  even  at  "  deporting  for  good 
and  all,  and  even  putting  to  death,  foreigners  occupying 
posts  in  the  State."  One  of  the  Decembrist  leaders,  A. 
Muraviev,  on  founding  the  political  society  known  as 
the  Union  of  Security,  stated  that  it  was  destined  to 
"  fight  the  Germans  in  the  service  of  Russia." 

Among  those  who  took  part  in  the  insurrection  of 
December  14,  1825,  we  find  very  few  bearers  of 
German  names.  Pestel,  and  Pushkin's  friend,  the  poet 
Kuchelbaecker,  were  sincere  Russian  patriots,  though  of 
German  birth.  The  very  names  of  the  Decembrist  and 
anti-Decembrist  societies  proclaim  their  nationalism  ;  the 
Order  of  Russian  Knights,  the  Society  of  United  Slavs. 

Among  their  adversaries,  the  aristocracy  and  the 
reactionary  bureaucrats,  German  names  were  of  com- 
mon occurrence  ;  and  the  Germans  displayed  a  great 
activity.  The  first  disturbances  in  the  Imperial  Guard, 
which  occurred  in  1820,  were  provoked  by  the  hateful 
brutality  of  the  German  colonel,  Schwarz,  commander 
of  the  Semenovsky  Regiment.  The  Decembrist  insur- 
rection itself  was  crushed  by  German  hands .  When  the 
insurgents  assembled  in  the  Place  du  Senat  in  order  to 
demand  a  Constitution,  and  began  their  armed  attack 
(which  was  not  well  prepared),  the  Russian  generals 
did  not  know  what  to  do.  But  "the  Baltic  officers 
decided  to  take  the  initiative,  and  it  was  on  the  advice 
of  Baron  Tol  that  artillery  fire  was  opened  upon  the 
conspirators."     Nicolas  I  desired,  later  on,  to  "draw  a 


152  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

veil  over  the  part  played  by  the  Germans  in  the  repres- 
sion of  the  rising,"  says  M.  Pokrovsky,  but  "  when  one 
runs  through  the  list  of  the  champions  of  the  '  rightful 
cause  '  against  the  revolt,  one  is  struck  by  the  abundance 
of  Baltic  names :  those  of  the  Benkendorffs,  Griinwalds, 
Frederichs,  and  Kaulbars  gleam  from  every  page."  In 
fact,  says  M.  Pokrovsky,  the  German  noblesse  of  the 
Baltic  provinces  "  was  the  most  strongly  feudal  of  all 
the  nobles  of  the  Empire." 

"  The  most  loyal  of  the  Germans  "  was  Prince 
Eugene  of  Wurtemberg,  general  in  the  Russian  Army  ; 
and  it  was  he  who  assumed  the  command  of  the  troops 
hurled  against  the  insurrection. 


CHAPTER    IV 

I.  The  Tartaro- Prussian  Empire  under  Nicolas  I — The  knout  and 
the  shpitzruteny — The  necessity  of  reforms.  II.  The  "  Period 
of  the  Great  Reforms "  and  its  European  sources — A  fresh  step 
to  the  rear. 

I 

The  revolution  once  suppressed,  and  the  Decembrists 
hanged  or  deported  and  legal  order  re-established,  it 
only  remained  for  the  Government  of  Nicolas  I  to  main- 
tain it.  How  disastrous  were  the  measures  taken  with 
this  end  in  view  we  have  already  seen  by  the  opinion 
quoted  on  an  earlier  page,  of  General  Kuropatkin,  ex- 
Minister  of  War.  Under  Nicolas  I  the  despotic  Asiatic 
conceptions  of  government  attained  their  greatest  ex- 
pansion, and  the  Russian  Tsar  became  "  the  most 
powerful  sovereign  in  the  world."  In  order  to  preserve 
his  power  intact,  the  Government  endeavoured  to 
separate  Russia  from  the  civilization  of  the  West  by 
hermetically  sealed  partitions.  The  only  "European" 
model  which  it  regarded  as  worthy  of  being  followed 
in  Russia  was  the  police  and  military  system  of  Prussia. 
To  combine  the  slavery  of  the  East  with  the  discipline 
of  the  Prussian  barracks — this  was  the  naive  ideal  of  the 
autocracy  and  the  bureaucracy. 

It  was  realized  to  perfection  in  the  "  military 
colonies  "  organized  by  Count  Araktsheev.  The 
peasants  attached  to  these  colonies  lived  in  houses  of 
the  same  dimensions  and  the  same  colour,  which  were 
ranged  along  the  street  like  a  rank  of  soldiers.  They 
cultivated  the  soil,  divided,  like  soldiers,  into  com- 
panies,    under     the     supervision     and     command     of 

153 


154  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

"  leaders."  Their  agricultural  labours  were  thus 
veritably  "  militarized  "  in  the  Prussian  manner,  and 
their  life  as  well.  Every  action,  every  movement  of 
these  peasants  was  regulated  and  ordered  beforehand. 

The  administration  was  convinced  that  the  authorities 
ought  to  inspire  a  "  salutary  dread  "  in  the  people.  The 
Tartar  knout  and  the  German  shpitzruteny  were  its 
principal  instruments.1  Here  is  a  description  of  the 
punishment  of  the  shpitzruteny  introduced  by  Arakt- 
sheev,  whose  name    (spitzruten)   indicates  its   origin:  — 

44  A  thousand  brave  Russian  soldiers  stand  in  two 
ranks,  facing  one  another.  In  the  hand  of  each  man 
is  placed  a  rod — shpltzruten  ;  the  living  '  green  lane  ' 
is  gaily  waving,  swaying  in  the  air.  They  bring  the 
criminal,  naked  to  the  belt  ;  his  arms  are  attached  to 
the  stocks  of  two  muskets  :  before  him  march  two 
soldiers,  who  make  sure  that  he  shall  go  forward  slowly, 
so  that  the  shpltzruten  shall  have  time  to  leave  its  marks 
on  his  skin.  Behind  him,  on  a  sledge,  is  a  coffin.  The 
sentence  is  read  ;  the  lugubrious  rolling  of  the  drum 
is  heard.  One,  twoi  !  And  the  green  lane  begins  to 
lash  the  victim  on  the  right  side,  then  on  the  left.  .  ,.  . 
In  a  few  minutes  his  body  is  covered  with  broad  stripes, 
red  and  contused  ;  the  drops  of  blood  spring  to  the 
surface.  ...  *  Have  pity,  my  little  brothers  !  '  This 
cry  pierces  the  dull  rolling  of  the  drum.  But  to  have 
pity  is  to  be  beaten  in  turn,  then  and  there.  So  the  lane 
of  birch-rods  strikes  more  fiercely.  Soon  the  back  and 
sides  are  simply  one  wound  ;  here  and  tjiere  the  skin 
comes  off  in  strips.     The  living  dead  advances  slowly, 

1  M.  Anatole  Leroy-Beaulieu  states  that  the  word  knout  "seems 
rather  of  Aryan  origin,  if  it  is  not  Germanic  ;  it  has  at  all  events 
the  same  root  as  the  German  knot  en "  (V  Empire  des  Tsars  et  les 
Russes,  vol.  Li.  "p.  414,  3rd  ed.).  "For  the  rest,  corporal  punish- 
ments were  characteristic  of  ancient  Russia,  in  which  the  Byzantine 
influence  was  perhaps  in  reality  more  ancient  than  the  Tartar  in- 
fluence." To  this  assertion  we  may  oppose  that  of  Count  Orlov, 
who  declared,  as  long  ago  as  1861,  that  "  where  Russia  was  able  to 
develop  without  the  direct  influence  of  the  Mongols  and  the  tshinovniki 
there  were  no  corporal  punishments." 


THE  EUROPE ANIZATION  OF  THE  STATE    155 

bound  to  the  rifle-butts,  covered  with  tatters  of  his 
own  flesh,  wildly  rolling  his  leaden  eyes.  .  .  .  He  falls. 
But  he  must  still  be  beaten— for  a  long  time  yet.  The 
body  is  placed  on  the  sledge  and  again  he  passes,  and 
again,  between  the  two  ranks,  whence  fall  without  inter- 
mission the  blows  of  the  shpitzruteny,  which  cut  into  the 
bloody  pulp.  The  moans  have  ceased  ;  one  hears  only 
a  sort  of  clapping  sound,  like  the  sound  of  a  stick 
striking  the  water,  and  the  funeral  drums  are  muttering 
still."  » 

A  State  in  which  such  savagery  survived— even  though 
ordered  and  disciplined  in  the  Prussian  manner — could 
not  long  co-exist  with  civilized  States.  Russia  was 
forced  either  to  fall  asunder  or  to  transform  herself. 

II 

When  the  debacle  of  the  Crimea  had  opened  the  eyes 
of  all  those  who  were  capable  of  understanding,  demon- 
strating the  impossibility  of  maintaining  the  ancien 
regime,  Russia,  as  in  her  earlier  crises,  applied  to  the 
civilization  of  the  West  for  remedies.  The  "great 
reforms"  of  1860-70  were  thus  merely  a  phase  of 
Europeanization .  Thus  they  appeared  to  their  partisans, 
as  well  as  to  their  adversaries. 

One  publicist,  for  example,  a  noble  and  a  reactionary, 
opposed  them  in  order  to  preserve  the  old  institu- 
tions :  — 

"  Each  volost  (canton)  is  governed  by  a  parliament  ; 
in  each  ouyezd  (district)  there  is  a  parliament ;  in  the 
gubernii  there  will  probably  be  the  same,"  he  complains 
with  indignation,  "  and  finally,  the  centre  of  the  State 
must  be  transformed  in  the  same  manner.  Thus  cen- 
tralization is  adopted  for  the  basis  of  the  administration, 
and  a  condition  of  this  centralization  is  parliamentarism. 
And  the  surroundings  necessary  to  this  monster,  we  have 
them,  too  :  justice  rendered  publicly,  oral  procedure, 
the  division  of  powers,  and,  to  cap  it  all,  the  jury.     In 

«  Gregor    Djanshiev,    The  Period    of   the  Great   Reforms,   9th    ed. 
(Moscow,  1905),  pp.  187,  188. 


156  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

a  word,  instead  of  Russia  we  see  a  Western  State. 
Gentlemen,  in  the  matter  of  the  reactionary  demands 
of  the  Liberals,  have  you  not  gone  too  far  along  the 
path  of  transformation?  "  l 

The  partisans  of  this  "  transformation  "  considered, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  the  reforms  ought  to  be  carried 
as  far  as  possible,  precisely  because  the  state  of  Russia 
was  so  backward  ;  and  that  no  compromise  with  the  old 
Russia  was  acceptable.  Here,  for  example,  is  what  a 
provincial  Procurator  wrote  during  the  discussion  of  the 
judicial  reform,   which  was  effected  in    1864:  — 

"  In  England  the  people  and  the  Government,  society 
and  justice,  develop  simultaneously.  The  result  is  that 
these  factors  agree  and  collaborate,  and  the  law  is  a 
common  product  and  a  common  possession.  As  for  our 
society,  it  participated  in  nothing  ;  it  existed  in  a  state 
of  lethargy." 

Replying  to  those  who  wished  to  "  go  slowly,"  the 
same  writer  replied  : — 

"On  the  contrary,  we  must  transform  things  more 
rapidly  and  more  resolutely.  Deliberateness  in  reforms 
is  always  harmful  ;  the  help  of  all  is  necessary.  Half- 
measures  never  lead  us  to  the  goal  ;  they  are  almost 
always  disastrous.  Everything  must  be  transformed 
at  the  same  time.  For,  if  the  old  system  is  not  good, 
it  must  be  suppressed  entirely,  not  in  part  ;  we  must 
not  mix  the  old  with  the  new.  ...  If  we  were  not 
alive,  humanity  existed.  That  which  humanity  has 
acquired,  with  that  we  must  endow  our  resurrection, 
and  by  means  of  reforms  take  our  part  of  the  good 
which  belongs  to  all  the  peoples,  and  for  which  the 
advanced  peoples  have  laboured  in  the  interests  of 
humanity."  2 

To  those  who  expressed  the  fear — generally  facti- 
tious— that  sudden  reforms  might  provoke  administrative 

1  Among  the  most  notorious  agents  of  reaction  and  oppression 
under  Nicolas  I  we  find,  as  always,  the  bearers  of  aristocratic  German 
names,  the  Counts  Adlerberg,  Benckendorf,  Kleinmichel,  etc. 

2  J.  Guessen,  The  Reform  of  the  Judiciary  (Petersburg,  1905),  pp.  82-4. 


THE   EUROPE ANIZATION   OF  THE   STATE     157 

disorder,  the  champions  of  progress  cited  the  experience 
of  the  European  States. 

"  Among  others,  the  example  of  Hanover  (where  the 
situation,  as  regards  the  judicial  organization,  was 
perhaps  even  worse  than  with  us)  demonstrates  the 
possible  rapidity  and  facility  of  such  transformations. 
Publicity  of  judicial  debates  was  in  Hanover  intro- 
duced at  a  single  stroke,  by  the  law  of  the  8th  of 
November  1850  ;  and  the  oldest  magistrates  and 
advocates  accepted  it  with  enthusiasm.  It  was  the 
same  in  Piedmont.  This  proves  that  there  is  no  need 
of  any   gradation   in  reform." 

The  same  divergence  appeared  in  respect  of  each 
separate  question.  In  the  course  of  the  discussion 
on  the  introduction  of  the  jury  system,  a  Conservative 
Senator  wrote  : — 

"  Authentic  information  as  to  this  form  of  jurisdic- 
tion dates  only  from  the  reign  of  Henry  III,  from  a  time 
when  the  struggle  against  revolt  had  ceased  only  after 
the  King  had  confirmed  the  Magna  Charta  Libertatum 
of   John    Lackland.    .    .    .   The    jury,    born   of    a    period 
thus  full  of  disturbances,  and  under  the  conditions  de- 
scribed, was  doubtless  regarded  not  as  a  means  merely 
of  ameliorating  the  judicial  system,  but  also  as  a  weapon 
to  defend  the   interests   of  the   people   against  the  en- 
croachments of  the  supreme  power."     And  as  Russia, 
he  adds,  is  an  autocracy,  "  the  jury  will  be  in  absolute 
contradiction   to    the   fundamental   laws   of   the    State." 
To  these  excesses  of  loyalism  a  provincial  advocate 
objected  the  modern  history  of  England.     Against  the 
proposal  to  withhold  political  crimes  from  the  compe- 
tence of  the  jury,  he  fulminates  in  the  following  terms  : 
"  It   is   said   that   these  exceptions   are   in  imitation  of 
France,  and  that  they  do  not  exist  in  England.      One 
may   inquire,    however,    where    the   greatest    tranquillity 
reigns — among  the  French  people  or  the  English."  1 

European  experience  was  of  service  not  only  in  philo- 
sophic discussions   of  a  private  nature   concerning   the 

1  J.  Guessen,  op.  cit.  p.  93. 


158  RUSSIA    AND  EUROPE 

"  great  reforms,"  but  also  in  the  labours  of  the  official 
bodies  which  were  preparing  the  texts  of  the  new  laws. 

Thus  the  Government  instructed  a  special  commission 
to  study  the  organization  of  the  judiciary  in  Europe, 
and  particularly  in  France  and  England.  In  the  rescript 
relating  to  its  labours,  which  was  published  at  the 
beginning  of  1862,  it  is  stated  that  the  new  judicial 
system  is  to  be  established  "  according  to  the  teachings 
of  science  and  the  experience  of  the  European  States." 

As  M\  Leroy-Beaulieu  remarks  in  his  Empire  des 
Tsars,  "  neither  the  teachings  of  science  nor  the  coun- 
sels of  experience  were  lacking  among  the  promoters 
of  the  judicial  reform."  In  its  liberty  to  do  all  things 
and  attempt  all  things  the  St.  Petersburg  Government 
had  on  this  occasion  by  no  means  set  its  mind  upon 
doing  something  new.  The  reform  of  the  courts  was 
less  an  original  creation  than  a  combination  and  adapta- 
tion of  various  elements,  nearly  all  of  which  were 
borrowed  from  the  more  advanced  nations  of  Europe.1 
M.  Leroy-Beaulieu  considers  that  the  reorganization  of 
the  judicial  system  was  more  successful  than  the  other 
"  great  reforms  "  precisely  because  of  the  preponderat- 
ing  influence   of  European  examples. 

"If  the  judicial  reform  was  the  most  largely  con- 
ceived and  the  most  resolutely  executed  of  all  the  great 
reforms  of  the  Emperor  Alexander  II,  it  was  for  this 
reason  :  instead  of  being  based  on  empirical  data  and 
the  convenience  of  the  moment,  it  had  a  rational  basis, 
reposing  at  once  on  general  ideas  accepted  by  all  modern 
peoples,  and  on  the  practice  of  the  more  civilized  States. 
Thus,  despite  the  repeated  deviations  of  a  Govern- 
ment always  too  liable  to  go  back  on  its  own  laws, 
this  reform  displayed  what  was  often  lacking  to  con- 
temporary reforms  :    unity  and  consistency." 

In   this    connection,    how    was   it    that    the   teaching 
derived    from    Europe    was    most    plainly    evident    and 
most  closely  followed  in  the  domain  of  justice  in  par- 
ticular?    The  reason  is  that  the  attempt  to  Europeanize 
1  A.  Leroy-Beaulieu,  L'Empire  des  Tsars,  vol.  ii.  p.  289. 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION  OF  THE  STATE     159 

Russia  which  was  made  in  Alexander's  time  had  its 
point  of  departure  in  the  embourgeoisement  of  Russia. 
A  stable,  prompt,  and  uniform  judicial  system  is  an 
essential  condition  of  the  civil  and  economic  relations 
of  a  bourgeois  system  of  Government.  We  know,  for 
example,  that  the  invasion  of  Oriental  countries  by 
Europeans  and  European  capital  has  always  led  to  the 
establishment  of  the  system  of  "  capitulations,"  which 
renders  them  amenable  to  special  tribunals  and  protects 
them  from  native  justice.  European  forms  and  elements 
having  permeated  the  economic  life  of  Russia,  it  became 
necessary  to  Europeanize  the  judicial  institutions,  wholly 
archaic  and  Asiatic,  which  well  merited  their  charac- 
teristic cognomen  of  volokita  (from  volotshit,  which 
means  to  protract,  to  spin  out).  And  as  the  old  Russian 
justice  was  in  reality  the  negation  of  all  justice,  it  was 
necessary  to  suppress  it  altogether  and  to  replace  it 
by  an  entirely  new  system.  Even  the  nobles  and  the 
bureaucrats  understood  that  this  necessity  was  absolute, 
and  they  did  not  oppose  the  judicial  reform  as  ener- 
getically as  they  opposed  other  reforms,  in  which  the 
influence  of  Europe  was  less  apparent. 

In  my  Modern  Russia  I  have  explained  the  character 
of  the  "  great  reforms  "  accomplished  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  Alexander  II,  and  notably  of  the  agrarian 
reform  of  1861,  and  the  introduction  of  local  self- 
government  in  1 861  and  1870.  Even  then  the  seigneurs 
and  bureaucrats  were  striving  to  maintain  their  domi- 
nation and  to  safeguard  their  interests.  The  peasants, 
although  now  liberated,  remained  in  economic  and 
juridical  dependence  on  the  nobles.  The  zemstvos  were 
subject  to  the  property  franchise,  and  the  system  of 
electoral  curia,  in  which  the  nobles  predominated. 
Members  of  the  urban  municipalities  also  were  elected 
by  a  property  franchise.  The  zemstvos  and  the  muni- 
cipalities were  placed  under  the  tutelage  of  the 
Governors  ;  and  the  presidency  of  the  zemstvos  became 
a  privilege  of  the  marshals  of  the  noblesse.  In  1863 
corporal  punishments  were  abolished  in  principle,  except 


160  RUSSIA    AND   EUROPE 

in  the  case  of  peasants,  on  whom  the  rural  tribunals 
could  still  inflict  such  punishment.  In  short,  the  "  great 
reforms  "  emerged  from  the  hands  of  the  Governmental 
commissions  diminished  and  mutilated  ;  the  feudal 
system  was  not  definitely  overthrown,  and  a  little  later, 
under  Alexander  III,   it  took  its   revenge. 

The  counter  -  reformation  accomplished  by  this 
monarch  is  in  a  certain  measure  to  be  explained 
by  international  causes,  but  indirectly  only.  As  I  have 
already  pointed  out  in  my  Modern  Russia,  it  really 
originated  as  a  slackening  or  relative  decline  of 
economic  activity.  The  agrarian  crisis,  which  had 
hampered  the  progress  of  agriculture  and  other  forces 
of  production  in  general,  lowered  the  standard  of 
material  life,  and,  consequently,  of  social  and  political 
life.  The  reinforcement  of  old  economic  forms  and 
relations  resulted  in  the  revival  of  the  old  political  spirit. 

Now,  the  agrarian  crisis  and  the  economic  regression 
which  occurred  about  1880  resulted  from  a  factor  of 
world-wide  importance  :  the  appearance  of  American 
wheat  in  the  European  markets,  where  it  eliminated1 
its  competitors,  and,  consequently,  the  cereals  of  Russia. 
The  falling  prices  which  resulted  from  this  invasion 
started  the  crisis  in  Russia.  The  Government  of 
Alexander  III  was  incapable  of  remedying  the  evil  by 
progressive  means  ;  it  could  discover  no  other  resource 
than  regression. 

The  seigneurial  restoration  reached  its  apogee  in 
1889,  in  the  institution  of  the  zemskie  natshalniki 
("  chiefs  of  the  soil  "),  who  were  functionaries  recruited 
from  the  nobility,  and  invested  with  administrative  and 
judicial  power  over  the  peasantry.  This  was,  in  fact,  a 
partial  return  to  serfdom. 

For  the  rest,  the  American  invasion  of  the  European 
market,  and  the  sudden  changes  which  it  occasioned, 
were  not  the  only  factors  of  the  political  and  sociaj 
reaction  which  Russia  then  underwent  ;  the  governing 
classes  must  also  be  held  responsible.  The  spirit  of 
caste    had    warped    the    work    of    reformation    under 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION   OF  THE   STATE     161 

Alexander  II  ;  the  directing  circles  had  limited  the 
Europeanization  of  Russia  by  clinging  as  far  as  possible 
to  the  old  order  of  things. 

It  is  a  singular  fact  that  they  themselves  went  to 
Europe  for  their  ideas.  For  example,  they  quoted  in 
favour  of  the  re-establishment  of  corporal  punishment 
an  English  peer  who,  so  they  claimed,  had  declared 
that  humanity  could  be  perfected  only  by  means  of 
the  rod.  The  celebrated  Pobiedonostzev,  opposing  the 
jury  system,  invoked  the  testimony  of  European  experts 
(English  in  particular),  who  were  opposed  to  this  "  un- 
happy institution."  As  for  their  measures  against  the 
Press,  the  Russian  reactionaries  sought  for  precedents 
in  the  France  of  Napoleon  III  and  the  statutes  of  his 
censorship. 

The  Germans  were  no  strangers  to  the  doings  of 
the  reaction  which  occurred  toward  the  end  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  To  please  the  Conservatives,  the 
Government  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Ministry  of 
Justice  a  Baltic  Junker  of  the  Protestant  faith — Count 
Palen — whose  appointment,  according  to  another  well- 
known  Conservative,  Meshtshersky,  "  was  intended  as 
a  corrective  of  the  excess  of  Liberalism  occasioned 
by  the  new  judicial  institutions."  Sometimes  the 
Germans  remained  behind  the  scenes  ;  such  was  the 
case  with  the  Tsar's  aide-de-camp,  General  Grunwald, 
who  occupied  the  modest  post  of  Master  of  the  Imperial 
Stud,  but  who  opposed  a  powerful  resistance  to  the 
reformation  of  the  Russian  Army  (he  was  opposed  to 
general  and  obligatory  military  service,  which,  mingling 
young  men  of  education  with  the  simple  sons  of  the 
soil,  might  have  served  to  enlighten  them)  ;  and  he 
helped  to  introduce  into  Russia  the  classical  school, 
disciplined  in  the  Prussian  manner.  Somewhat  later 
the  talent  for  organization  displayed  by  the  Germans — 
but  in  the  service  of  reaction  rather  than  in  that  of 
revolution — was  brilliantly  exemplified  in  the  person  of 
Count  Plehve,  who  was  killed  by  the  Terrorists  after  he 
had  employed  his  police  to  terrorize  the  whole  Empire. 

11 


CHAPTER    V 

I.  The  problem  of  national  representation  under  Alexander  II  and  the 
constitutional  movement.  II.  The  Duma— Foreign  elements  in 
the  representative  system  in  Russia— Is  the  political  mentality  of 
the  Russian  people  Asiatic  or  European  ?    III.  Some  documents. 

I 

Despite  all  their  imperfections,  which  were  aggravated 
by  subsequent  remodelling,  the  institutions  created 
during  the  "  Period  of  Great  Reforms  "  constituted  a 
considerable  advance.  But  their  operation,  and  their 
existence  even,  were  extremely  precarious.  We  might 
in  this  connection  cite  the  opinion  of  a  Russian  Con- 
servative, who,  when  certain  innovations  were  being 
discussed,  declared  them  to  be  incompatible  with  the 
basic  principle  of  the  Russian  system — that  is,  the  auto- 
cratic power.  He  was  right,  and  the  more  improvements 
were  involved  by  the  new  state  of  things,  and  the  more 
"  Europeanism,"  the  more  profound,  necessarily,  was 
the  hostility  between  them  and  the  ancien  regime. 
M.  Guessen,  the  historian  of  the  judicial  reformation, 
makes  this  remark.  He  considers  that  the  new  justice, 
from  the  first  days  of  its  introduction  into  Russia, 
"  entered  into  the  organism  of  the  State  like  a  foreign 
body,  which,  according  to  the  general  law  of  physiology, 
must  be  assimilated  or  eliminated."  One  might  say  as 
much  of  the  other  great  reforms  of  Alexander  II,  and 
of  local  self-government   in   particular. 

The  imminence  of  a  conflict  between  the  organs 
which  had  just  been  created  and  the  old  central  power 
was  obvious  from  the  time  of  their  appearance.  Also, 
the   reactionaries   protested   against   the   reforms,   while 


THE  EUROPEANIZATION   OF   THE   STATE     163 

the  Radicals  and  Liberals  demanded  their  complement  : 
they  believed  that  it  was  indispensable  "  to  crown  the 
edifice  " — that  is,  to  reconstruct  the  State  on  constitu- 
tional principles.  Immediately  the  zemstvos  were 
created,  several  of  these  assemblies  in  various  Govern- 
ments of  Russia  presented  addresses  to  the  Tsar  in 
which  they  expressed  their  desire  to  obtain  the  "  crown- 
ing of  the  work."  The  secret  political  societies 
published  proclamations  in  favour  of  the  Constitution. 
And  as  the  Government,  far  from  giving  way,  increased 
its  measures  of  repression,  the  movement  of  liberation 
assumed   the   morbid   form  of  Terrorism. 

The  Terrcrist  agitation  became  particularly  active 
after  the  war  of  1877-78,  which  contributed  to  the 
political  preoccupations  of  the  Russian  people  and 
greatly  irritated  the  more  advanced  spirits  against  the 
governmental  system.  For  them  it  was  not  admissible 
that  the  Russian  people,  the  liberator  of  the  Balkan 
Slavs,  could  be  unworthy  of  the  parliamentary  system 
conceded  to  their  liberated  brethren.  M.  A.  Leroy- 
Beaulieu,  who  had  occasion  to  study  on  the  spot  the 
spirit  prevailing  in  Russian  society  after  the  war  against 
Turkey,   describes    it   in   the   following   words  : — 

"  It  is  painful  to  the  Russians  to  remain  politically 
inferior  to  the  other  States  of  Europe,  almost  all  of 
which  are  to-day  provided  with  Constitutions  ;  inferior 
even  to  their  younger  brothers  of  the  Balkans,  who 
are  still  minors,  and  were  emancipated  only  yesterday. 
.  .  .  Many  Russians  find  it  difficult  to  grasp  the  very 
serious  reasons  which  render  a  liberal  development  more 
difficult  in  the  great  Empire  of  the  North  than  in  these 
lesser  States,  which  were  liberated  by  the  Russian  arms. 
Their  eyes  are  offended  by  a  contrast  which  the  years 
will  but  render  more  sensible  and  more  revolting."  l 

The  Gpvernment,  which  was  not  ignorant  of 
these  considerations,  remained,  however,  immovable. 
Alexander  II  avowed  that  he  saw  nothing  to  object 
to    in    the    constitutional    system,    but    added    that    he 

1  A.  Leroy-Beaulieu,  L' Empire  des  Tsars,  vol.  ii.  p.  581. 


164  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

refused  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  introducing;  it 
into  Russia.  But  he  thereby  burdened  himself  with 
a  far  heavier  responsibility  :  that  of  depriving  the 
people  of  its  sole  lawful  means  of  expressing  its  will. 
And  he  became  the  victim  of  his  own  inconsequence, 
and  of  the  violent  struggle  which  the  reformers,  whose 
aspirations  were  awakened  at  the  beginning  of  his 
reign,  undertook  against  the   return  of  the  reaction. 

It  was  a  singular  thing  that  the  hesitations  of 
Alexander  II  were  provoked  by  the  example  of  the 
French  Revolution,  whose  lessons  the  Emperor  did  not 
sufficiently  comprehend.  Some  weeks  before  his  tragic 
death  his  ministers  wished  him  to  convoke  a  consulta- 
tive assembly  of  Russian  representatives.  Alexander  II 
replied  to  them  :  "  Gentlemen,  what  is  proposed  to 
us  is  the  assembly  of  notables  of  Louis  XVI.  We  must 
not  forget  what  followed."  And  "  he  postponed  for 
some  weeks  the  publication  of  the  Act  on  which 
depended  the  future  of  the  Empire  and  his  own 
existence."  l 

M.  Leroy-Beaulieu  recalls  in  this  connection  that 
Louis   XVI    also   had   shuffled  and  hesitated. 

We  must  not,  however,  attribute  to  the  ministers 
of  Alexander  II  a  foresight  superior  to  his  own.  His 
Prime  Minister,  Loris-Melikov,  in  a  report  dated  the 
28th  January  1881,  denied  the  possibility  of  repre- 
sentative government  in  Russia. 

"  Russia  cannot  accommodate  herself  to  a  national 
representation  invested  with  forms  borrowed  from  the 
West.  These  forms  are  not  only  foreign  to  the  Russian 
people,  but  might  even  shatter  all  the  foundations  of 
its  political  conceptions,  and  occasion  a  complete 
upheaval  of  ideas,  of  which  it  would  be  difficult  to 
foresee  the  consequences.  Similarly,  we  regard  as 
inopportune  the  propositions  advanced  by  certain  of 
the  supporters  of  the  ancient  forms  of  the  Russian 
State,  to  create  in  Russia  a  Zemskaia  Douma,  or  a 
Zemskii  Sobor.  Our  period  is  so  far  removed  from 
1  A.  Leroy-Beaulieu,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii.  p.  509. 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION  OF   THE   STATE     165 

that  in  which  this  ancient  method  of  representation 
existed  .  .  .  that  it  would  be  difficult  merely  to 
resuscitate  it.  In  any  case  it  would  be  a  dangerous 
attempt    to    return    to    the   past."  ■ 

It  goes  without  saying  that  to  remain  at  a  dead 
stop,  without  advancing  toward  Europeanization  nor 
returning  to  national  representation  practised  in 
Muscovite  Russia,  was  a  solution  even  less  practical 
than  resignation  to  the  boldest  Constitution. 

II 

After  the  violent  death  of  Alexander  II,  those  who 
governed,  with  the  new  Emperor  at  their  head,  discussed 
the  question  left  in  suspense  by  the  defunct  Tsar. 
Alexander  III  adopted  the  advice  of  Pobiedonostzev, 
his  friend,  who  pronounced  himself  as  absolutely 
opposed  to  any  constitutional  regime^  and  advised  the 
Tsar  not  to  add  a  central  "  debating  society  "  to  the 
local  "  debating  societies,"  which,  according  to  him, 
already  existed,  in  the  shape  of  the  zemstvos,  juries, 
etc.  Instead  of  a  national  representation,  even  of  the 
consultative  type,  Russia  was  subjected  from  that 
moment  to  a  government  by  autocracy  and  the  police, 
which  was  more  and  more  accentuated  as  time  went 
on  ;  and  not  until  a  quarter  of  a  century  later  were 
realized,  very  imperfectly,  those  ideas  of  parliamentary 
government  which  had  penetrated  Russia  from  Europe 
at    the    beginning    of    the    century. 

I  will  not  here  go  into  the  European  origins  of 
the  charter  published  on  17/30  October  1905,  and 
known  as  the  "  Manifesto  concerning  Liberties."  I  will 
confine  myself  to  drawing  the  reader's  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  worst  aspects  of  the  "  Constitution  ' 
at  present  existing  in  Russia  are  modelled  upon  the 
example  of  Prussia.  Such  is  the  system  of  the 
electoral  "  wards,"  which  divide  the  electors  into  classes, 
like  so  many  horses  put  into  isolated  stalls  in  a  stable. 

1  S.  Svatikov,  The  Social  Movement  in  Russia,  1700-1905  (Russian 
ed.),  Rostov  on  the  Don,  1905,  pp.  129-30. 


166  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

It  is  the  same  system  as  that  on  which  the  Prussian 
Landtag  is  based. 

One  might  establish  yet  other  points  of  resemblance 
between  the  representative  system  of  Russia  and 
that  of  Prussia,  which  are  at  the  same  time  points 
of  dissimilarity  between  the  Russian  constitutional 
legislation  and  the  true  parliamentary  system  of 
Western  Europe.  None  the  less,  in  spite  of  all  its 
defects,  the  system  of  national  representation  which  has 
been  operating  in  Russia  since  1906 — with  too  many 
interruptions  and  dissolutions,  it  is  true — has  played  a 
great    part    in   the    political   evolution    of   the   country. 

The  principal  distinction  between  the  European  State 
and  an  Asiatic  despotism  is  that  in  the  former  the 
population  has  the  possibility  of  expressing  its  desires 
and  its  will,  while  in  the  latter  it  is  destined  to 
obligatory  silence.  Before  the  year  1905  the  Russian 
people  had  not  the  right  of  speech.  A  long  time  ago 
a  Russian  Senator  defined  the  principal  character  of  the 
political   life  of   Russia   as  dumbness. 

"  The  Russian  people  is  dumb,"  said  the  Senator, 
"  and   has   no   power   of  reaction   against   abuses." 

The  revolutionary  movement  of  1905  and  the 
convocation  of  the  Duma  in  1906  established  a  line 
of  demarcation  between  this  ancient  speechless  Russia 
and  the  new  Russia  which  can  speak'  and  dares  to  do 
so.  And  immediately  after  the  introduction  of  national 
representation  in  Russia  it  became  apparent  that  the 
popular  masses  of  Russia  were  far  more  conscious  and 
better  prepared  for  constitutional  government  than  was 
supposed. 

Ill 

When  the  independent  Press  insisted  on  the  necessity 
of  establishing  a  constitutional  regime  in  Russia,  the 
reactionaries  always  objected  that  the  demands  for 
reforms  did  not  emanate  from  the  people,  but  were 
an  artificial  product  conceived  in  the  brains  of  the 
intellectuals,  who  were  alien  to  the  people.     The  people 


THE   EUROPE ANIZATION  OF    THE  STATE     167 

itself — asserted  the  reactionaries — had  no  thought  of 
any  modification  of  the  political  system,  and  had  no 
organic  need  which  corresponded  with  the  constitu- 
tional  demands. 

The  beginnings  of  the  Duma  gave  the  lie  to  these 
assertions  in  a  striking  fashion.  In  proof  of  this  I 
will  here  quote  some  documents  which  have  hitherto 
been  very  little  known  to  the  European  public,  but 
which  have  a  great  significance  for  those  who  wish 
to  study  the  political  mentality  of  the  popular  masses 
in  Russia,  and  to  solve  for  themselves  the  question 
whether  this  mentality  is  of  a  barbarous  and  Asiatic 
character,  or  whether,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  European 
and    progressive. 

These  documents  are  the  nakazy,  concerning  which 
I  have  already  published  a  few  passages  in  the  English 
Press.1 

Just  as  in  France  in  1789,  at  the  elections  to  the 
States-General,  the  populace  drew  up  the  famous  cahiers, 
in  which  it  set  out  its  needs  and  troubles  and  gave 
hints  to  its  representatives,  so  in  1906  and  1907, 
at  the  elections  to  the  first  two  Dumas,  the  population 
of  the  Russian  Empire  presented  its  deputies  with 
"  grievances  "  or  nakazy,  in  which  it  indicated  the  causes 
and  the  details  of  its  discontent,  and  formulated  its 
various  economic  and  political  desires. 

While  painting  a  gloomy  picture  of  the  condition 
of  the  country,  the  democratic  electors  pressed  upon 
their  representatives  in  the  Duma  demands  for  those 
changes  which  they  considered  necessary,  at  the  same 
time  indicating  the  manner  in  which  these  demands 
should  be   realized. 

The  drafting  and  presentation  of  the  nakazy  was  no 
easy  matter,  and  not  without  danger  for  the  electors. 
Although  the  Government  had  summoned  the  popula- 
tion of  the  country  to  elect  representatives,  at  the  same 
time  it  directed  all  its  efforts  toward  rendering  it  im- 
possible for  these  representatives  to  express  the  genuine 
*  See  Darkest  Russia,  1913  (September,  October). 


168  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

will  of  their  electors,  and  toward  preventing  any  per- 
manent and  living  connection  between  the  constituencies 
and  the  deputies.  "Untrustworthy"  citizens  who  had 
been  guilty  of  drawing  up  or  signing  a  nakaz  to  their 
deputy  were  everywhere  subjected  to  searches  by  the 
police,  followed  by  acts  of  persecution.  When,  on  the 
dispersion  of  the  second  Duma,  searches  were  made  at 
the  residences  of  the  deputies  of  the  Left,  the  gendarmes 
and  agents  of  the  Okhrana  were  particularly  zealous  in 
ferreting  out  nakazy,  letters,  and  complimentary 
addresses    from    electors. 

The  receipt  of  such  communications  figured  as  the 
chief  count  in  the  indictment  of  the  Labour  members 
of  the  second  Duma.  In  the  demand  for  the  surrender 
of  fifty-five  Social  Democratic  deputies  presented  by 
the  late  M.  Stolypin  to  the  second  Duma,  these  deputies 
were  charged  with  having  "  received  nakazy  from  troop 
units  of  the  Vilna  and  Petersburg  garrisons,"  and  with 
having  '  collected  the  revolutionary  demands  of  the 
poorer    classes    of   the   population." 

But  in  spite  of  prohibitions  and  persecutions  the 
electors  were  eager  to  communicate  with  their  deputies. 
The  deputies  of  the  Left  in  the  first  two  Dumas  were 
overwhelmed  by  telegrams,  letters,  greetings,  and  man- 
dates from  every  corner  of  the  country,  and  from  the 
most  varied  elements  of  the  population.  From  the 
Northern  Dvina  and  the  Caucasus,  from  the  Baltic  and 
the  Urals,  from  the  shores  of  the  Volga  and  from  distant 
Siberia,  from  the  village  peasant  and  the  city  prole- 
tarian, from  the  artisan  and  the  clerk,  from  the  political 
exile  and  the  Cossack  of  the  Don,  from  the  soldier  and 
the  sailor— from  every  quarter  expressions  of  the  popular 
desires  and  demands  were  showered  upon  the  Duma. 
These  were  the  genuine  and  authentic  voice  of  the 
popular  masses  themselves. 

The  nakazy  contained  a  very  severe  criticism  of  the 
state  of  affairs  created  in  Russia  by  the  inertia  and 
malevolence  of  the  bureaucracy  and  the  egoism  of  the 
aristocracy. 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION   OF   THE   STATE     169 

"  Arbitrariness  and  violence  have  reached  their 
highest  pitch,"  declares  the  mandate  of  the  employees 
at   Duig's  factory  in  Petersburg. 

Here  are  some  examples  of  the  contents  of  these 
nakazy. 

The  peasants  of  the  canton  of  Kiinsk,  in  the  Govern- 
ment of  Novgorod,   complain  : — 

"  The  condition  of  the  lower  classes  has  become 
unbearable.  Everywhere  .  .  .  the  hovering  phantom 
of  death  is  seen.  The  plunder  of  the  people's  money 
and  the  abuse  of  authority  on  the  part  of  officialdom 
has    attained   terrifying   proportions." 

Especially   bad  was  the  condition  of  the  peasantry. 

A  memorial  to  the  second  Duma  from  the  subordinate 
employees  of  the  Nicolas  Railway  (Petersburg-Mos- 
cow) thus  describes  the  treatment  of  the  peasants  by 
the   landowners  : — 

"  You  look  upon  the  peasant  as  something  worse  than 
a  useless  dog,  to  whom  one  throws  a  gnawed  crust 
of  bread  so  that  it  shall  not  growl  and  go  mad  with 
hunger.  There  only  remains  one  thing  that  you  want — 
to  restore  serfdom,  your  former  joy.  But  the  people  have 
not  forgotten  the  old  song.  It  is  difficult  to  catch  a 
bird  once  released  from  its  cage." 

The  peasants,  when  secretly  communicating  with  their 
representatives  in  the  Duma,  connect  the  ruin  of  the 
villages  with  the  general  condition  of  the  country,  and 
find  the  source  of  their  calamities  in  the  autocratic  and 
bureaucratic  regime.  In  their  mandate  to  the  deputies 
for  the  Kuban  province  the  peasants  and  workmen  of 
one  of  its  districts  write  : — 

"  You  know,  of  course,  without  any  reminder  from 
us,  that  the  whole  of  Russia  is  languishing  under  the 
yoke  of  an  autocracy  that  has  outlived  itself.  She  is 
suffering  from  the  arbitrariness  of  officials  who  rob  the 
Treasury,  who  have  disgraced  Russia  by  an  unfortunate 
war,  who  have  ruined  the  country  by  unbearable  taxes 
and  imposts,  and  who  have  purposely  kept  the  whole 
people  in  ignorance  and  slavery.     You  know  that  the 


170  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

whole  of  Russia  has  been  turned1  into  a  conquered 
country,  with  field  courts-martial,  martial  law,  extra- 
ordinary and  increased  Okhrana — a  country  where  hun- 
dreds and  thousands  of  men  are  butchered,  shot,  hanged, 
imprisoned,  and  sent  to  penal  servitude,  and  where  a 
simple  mortal  can  invoke  no  laws  whatever  for  safe- 
guarding  his   honour  and   property." 

The  workmen  of  a  brickyard  in  the  Caucasus  con- 
clude their  mandate  by  complaining  : — 

"  In  the  absence  of  liberty  of  association  we  are 
compelled  to  gather  secretly  late  at  night  in  a  hal;£- 
lighted  hut  in  order  to  draw  up  a  mandate  to  our 
deputies." 

The  workmen  of  the  village  of  Novoselki,  in  the 
Government  of  Vladimir,  make  a  pitiful  appeal  to  their 
representatives  : — 

"  Try,  in  the  Duma,  to  obtain  rights  for  the  oppressed 
and  the  downtrodden.  Do  not  forget  that  far  away, 
in  a  damp  basement,  something  black  and  grimy  is 
creeping  about.  The  rays  of  the  sun  can  hardly  pene- 
trate thither.  Stretch  out,  therefore,  a  helping  hand  to 
your  brethren." 

While  painting  the  condition  of  the  country  in  sombre 
colours,  the  democratic  electors  pressed  upon  their 
representatives  demands  for  those  reforms  which  they 
considered  necessary,  at  the  same  time  indicating  the 
manner  in  which  those  demands  should  be  realized. 

The  first  and  most  urgent  demand  expressed  in  the 
mandates  was  for  an  amnesty  for  political  exiles  and 
prisoners,  for  the  release  of  these  champions  of  the 
people's  liberty  from  their  living  tombs.  "  We  demand 
an  amnesty  for  our  fathers  and  brothers  who  have 
fought  for  the  people's  cause  .  .  .  for  all  those  who 
have  suffered  for  their  political  convictions.  ..."  The 
inmates  of  the  Morshansk  prison  pointed  out  to  the 
members  of  the  Duma  that  they  owed  their  election, 
and  the  very  existence  of  the  Duma,  to  the  fighters  for 
liberty.  .  .  .  The  amnesty  must  be  complete  and 
general.      All   those   regarded   by   the   Government   as 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION   OF    THE  STATE     171 

'  political    criminals  "    must    be   liberated   without    any 
restrictions. 

The  electors  of  the  town  of  Kustanay,  in  the  province 
of  Turgay,  declare,  in  their  mandate  : — 

1  There  must  be  an  amnesty,  because  the  men  who  are 
now  languishing  in  prison  and  in  exile  have  been  en- 
deavouring, by  spreading  the  truth,  to  enlighten  the 
ignorant  people,  to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  slavery  from 
their  shoulders,  and  to  lead  them  toward  a  bright  future, 
when  the  kingdom  of  God  will  be  established  upon  earth 
— the  kingdom  of  liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity.  They 
are  men  who  keep  firmly  in  mind  the  commandment  of 
Christ  to  love  one's  neighbour  as  oneself.  Such  men 
should  receive  gratitude  and  appreciation,  instead  of 
being  persecuted  and  allowed  to  rot  in  prison." 

In  these  mandates  the  amnesty  is  regarded  not  as 
an  act  of  grace  or  pardon  but  as  the  lawful  right  of 
men  suffering  from  the  arbitrary  lawlessness  of  a 
despotic  reaction,  and  it  is  claimed  that  this  right 
should  be  recognized  and  realized  through  the  Legis- 
lature.    As  the  workers   of  Archangel  put  it  : — 

"  Demand  an  amnesty  in  all  political  and  religious 
cases — as  a  legislative  measure — a  full  amnesty,  not  as 
an  act  of  grace  .  .  .  but  as  a  restoration  of  rights  and 
liberties  which  have  unlawfully  been  taken  away,  and 
see  that  it  is  extended  to  all  those  who  have  been 
judicially  condemned  or  persecuted  administratively  for 
having   fought  against  the  Government." 

Other  nakazy  demand  that  the  amnestied  prisoners 
shall  receive  "  temporary  material  provision,"  or  be 
restored  to  their  homes   at  the  expense  of  the  State. 

"  An  amnesty  and  the  abolition  of  capital  punish- 
ment is  the  cry  which  issues  from  the  breast  "  of  the 
democratic  electors  of  Odessa.  Indeed,  it  was  obvious 
from  the  mandates  that  this  demand  was  the  unanimous 
cry  of  the  whole  country.  Among  the  thousands  of 
mandates,  greetings,  and  letters  received  by  the  deputies 
there  was  not  one  that  did  not  contain  this  claim.  An 
amnesty  was  regarded  by  the  people  as  the  indispensable 


172  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

preliminary  of  the  political  and  social  renovation  of  the 
country . 

The  workers  of  the  Ural  demand  "  the  prosecution 
of  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  and  other  officials  for 
infringing  the  Manifesto  of  October  30th,  which  granted 
the  people  inviolability  of  the  person,  liberty  of  con- 
science and  of  speech  and  of  the  Press,  and  which 
declared  that  no  enactment  should  have  the  force  of  law 
without  the  sanction  of  the  Duma." 

A  mandate  from  the  Kuban  province  requires  "  the 
immediate  dismissal  of  all  Government  authorities,  who 
should  be  replaced  by  officials  elected  on  the  basis  of  a 
universal,  direct,  equal,  and  secret  ballot."  A  mandate 
from  the  Government  of  Vladimir  demanded  the  abolition 
of  all  class  restrictions  on  the  person  and  property  of 
the  peasants,  as  well  as  of  all  payments  and  burdens 
arising  from  class  differentiation.  .  .  .  The 
peasantry,"  affirm  the  Simbirsk  peasants,  "  must  be 
equalized  in  their  rights  with  all  other  classes.  The 
State  must  only  consider  the  personal  merits  and 
capacities  of  its  citizens,  without  reference  to  their 
origin." 

•'  We  demand  the  total  abolition  of  classes.  Let 
there  be  neither  peasants  nor  burghers  nor  noblemen,  but 
only  Russian  citizens,"  say  the  working  men  of  Shuya. 

Great  importance  is  attributed  to  financial  reform, 
including  a  radical  change  in  the  system  of  taxation. 
Indirect  taxes  should  be  replaced  by  a  progressive 
income-tax.  (In  mandates  from  Petersburg,  Kertsh, 
Archangel,   Vladimir,   Turgay,  and  elsewhere.) 

Next  comes  a  demand  for  the  reform  of  local  self- 
government,  now  in  the  hands  of  the  upper  classes. 

"  We  demand  that  all  local  self-government  bodies, 
whether  urban  or  rural,  shall  be  elected  by  secret  ballot 
on  a  universal,  equal,  and  direct  franchise,  so  that  the 
zemstvos  and  town  councils  shall  no  longer  serve  exclu- 
sively the  interests  of  the  rich,  but  shall  administer  to 
the  needs  of  the  whole  population  '  (mandates  from 
Archangel,  Nijni  Novgorod,  Kiev,  etc.). 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION   OF   THE  STATE     173 

Perhaps  in  no  other  country  is  the  Church  in  greater 
subjection  to  the  State  than  in  Russia,  where  the  clergy 
have  become  the  administrative  and  police  agents  of  the 
autocracy.  The  mandates  demand  the  separation  of 
Church  and  State,  complete  religious  toleration,  and  the 
autonomy  of  the  various  denominations.  The  mandate 
of  the  Mussulman  inhabitants  of  Petropavlovsk  demands 
that  "  the  ordinances  of  the  Shariat,  which  regulate  the 
entire  religious,  political,  civil,  and  domestic  life  of  the 
Mussulmans,  shall  be  secure  from  violation  by  the 
Government .  This  demand  is  not  only  printed  on  paper, 
but  is  written  in  the  hearts  of  our  deputies." 

As  to  the  national  question,  not  a  single  note  of 
chauvinism  is  to  be  met  with  in  any  of  the  mandates. 

Full  equality  of  rights  for  all  the  nations  inhabiting 
Russia  and  complete  liberty  of  development— such  is 
the  claim  of  the  democracy.  Some  of  the  mandates 
even  go  so  far  as  to  advocate  the  federative  principle. 

"  We  demand,"  runs  a  mandate  from  the  Turgay 
province,  "  the  autonomy  of  the  provinces  and  com- 
munities, both  urban  and  rural  ;  the  widest  possible 
application  of  the  federative  principle  in  the  mutual 
relations  of  the  various  nationalities  ;  and  the  recog- 
nition of  their  absolute  right  to  self-organization  and 
proportional   representation." 

The  mandates  reflect  in  striking  fashion  the  hostile 
attitude  of  the  Russian  democracy  toward  the  Govern- 
ment's anti-Semitic  policy.  The  workmen  of  the 
Vladimir  Government  demand  "  the  committal  for  trial 
of  all  the  pogrom  executioners  and  their  expulsion  from 
the  Duma." 

Another  illustration  of  the  extreme  aversion  of  demo- 
cratic Russia  from  the  pogrom  campaign  and  its  authors 
may  be  found  in  the  following  congratulatory  mandate 
sent  to  the  Duma  by  the  Peasants'  Assembly  of  Pokrov- 
skaya,  in  the  Government  of  Samara  : — 

"  We  greet  the  members  of  the  Duma,  and  wish  them 
to  carry  out  our  mandates.  Our  greetings  do  not 
extend,    however,    to    Krushevan     (who    organized    the 


174  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

Kishinev  pogrom)  and  his  like,  since  the  free  sons  of 
the  Volga  can  have  no  sympathy  with  those  who 
extinguish   the   light   and   the   truth." 

One  of  the  Government's  favourite  assertions  is  that 
the  Russian  revolution  was  "  created  by  the  Jews."  A 
most  interesting  reply  to  this  is  to  be  found  in  the 
mandate  of  the  workmen  of  Albertin,  in  the  Government 
of  Grodno  : — 

"  The  parties  of  the  Right  pretend  that  it  is  the 
Jewish  speakers  who  imbue  the  people  with  sedition. 
But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have  several  speakers! 
created  by  the  Government  itself.  We  can  give  you 
their  names,  (i)  Hunger  and  cold,  which  are  caused 
by  the  Government  ;  (2)  heavy  taxes  imposed  by  the 
Government  on  the  necessities  of  the  labourer's  and  the 
peasant's  life,  while  alleviations  are  granted  to  squires 
and  manufacturers." 

Complete  liberty  of  education  is  the  watchword  of 
many  mandates. 

"  In  order  to  control  and  to  squander  with  impunity 
the  money  of  the  people,  the  Government  has  to  keep 
the  latter  in  darkness  and  ignorance,  depriving  it  syste- 
matically of  education  and  placing  obstacles  in  the  way 
of  obtaining  it.  The  Government  schools,  beginning 
with  the  parish  schools,  aim  at  killing  all1  aspirations 
toward    light   and   liberty." 

There  is  a  pathetic  ring  about  the  mandate  of  the 
boy  apprentices  of  the  Yurevsky  works  in  the  Govern- 
ment of  Kharkov  : — 

"  We,  the  younger  generation  of  Russia,  observing 
the  ignorance  of  our  grandfathers,  do  not  wish  to  be 
like  them.  We  have  the  desire  and  the  zeal  to  learn, 
but  the  bureaucratic  system  does  not  give  us,  the  chil- 
dren of  poor  toilers,  the  chance  of  developing  our 
intellectual  capacities." 

The  Russian  democracy  is  well  aware  that  the 
development  of  education  and  the  public  consciousness 
requires  a  radical  change  of  political  regime.  "  At 
present,"  say  the  peasants  and  burghers  of  the  Odessa 


THE  EUROPEANIZATION  OF   THE   STATE     175 

district,  "we  do  not  know  whether  the  taxes  are 
collected  from  us  properly,  or  how  they  are  spent,  or 
whether  any  Government  measure  is  in  the  interests  of 
the  people  or  to  its  detriment.  We  have  much  to  learn, 
and  we  want  to  be  free  to  learn  it." 

The  demand  for  complete  political  liberty  and  for 
the  democratization  of  the  State  system  is  to  be  found 
in  all  the  mandates.  "  It  is  time  to  put  an  end  to  blind- 
ness, and  to  untie  our  hands,  for  we  have  outgrown  our 
swaddling-bands  and  require  no  nurse,"  say  the  workers 
of  the  Yurevsky  works  at  Altchevskaya . 

A  large  number  of  mandates  call  for  the  restoration 
and  execution  of  the  Manifesto  of  October  30,  1905. 
This  Manifesto,  which  promised  the  establishment  of 
constitutional  guarantees,  is  not  regarded  as  a  voluntary 
concession  on  the  part  of  the  autocracy,  but  as  the 
victorious  achievement  of  the  people. 

"  We  demand  the  promulgation  of  a  law  guarantee- 
ing all  the  civic  rights  and  liberties  won  by  the  people's 
victory  on  October  30th  "  (mandate  from  the  Byelozersk 
district  of  the  Government  of  Novgorod). 

The  establishment  of  a  parliamentary  system  and  a 
democratic  representation  constitutes,  according  to  a 
mandate  from  Ekaterinoslavl,  the  foremost  need  of  the 
country.  There  should  be  no  other  authority  than  that 
appointed  by  the  people,  and  responsible  to  its  repre- 
sentatives, declare  the  peasants  of  the  Government  of 
Simbirsk.  Ministers  must  be  responsible  to  the  popular 
representatives.  The  Council  of  State,  which  "  buries 
the  Bills  born  in  the  Duma,"  ought  to  be  abolished. 
The  present  electoral  system  should  be  replaced  by 
universal  suffrage. 

The  following  are  some  typical  complaints  : — 

"  In  the  present  Duma  there  is  no  genuine  popular 
representation." 

"  Our  participation  in  the  elections  by  no  means 
implies  recognition  of  the  Duma  as  a  genuine  organ 
of    popular    representation." 

"  We  are  well  aware  that  the  present  Duma  cannot 


176  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

be  considered  a  genuine  organ  of  popular  representa- 
tion." 

"  Your  first  task,"  declare  the  electors  of  Archangel 
to  their  representatives,  "  must  be  a  struggle  for  full 
popular  representation,  making  the  Duma  not  an  organ 
of  agreement  with  the  Government,  but  a  revolutionary 
centre  for  the  organization  of  the  masses.  You  must 
open  the  people's  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  Duma  is  not 
genuinely  representative,  that  it  is  merely  consultative 
in  character." 

But  in  spite  of  all  this,  even  the  partisans  of  the 
extreme  Left  understood  that  the  creation  of  the  Duma 
constituted  a  new  phase  of  the  history  of  Russia. 

•When  I  was  elected  deputy  for  the  city  of  St.  Peters- 
burg, among  the  greetings  and  congratulations  I 
received  on  that  occasion  was  one  from  several  revo- 
lutionists lying  under  sentence  of  death  at  Samara  : — 

"  We  hail  you  as  a  member  of  the  People's  Parlia- 
ment," they  wrote.  "  We  shall  now  boldly  ascend  the 
scaffold,  seeing  the  dawn  of  a  new  light." 

Here  I  quote  some  of  those  nakazy  in  which  the 
electors  endeavoured  to  give  the  deputies  hints  as  to 
the  tactics  to   be  followed  : — 

"  In  sending  you  to  the  second  Duma  we  do  not 
cherish  the  hope  that  the  Government  will  accede  to  the 
popular  demands.  Indeed,  since  the  workmen  of  St. 
Petersburg,  who,  on  January  22,  1905,  bore  a  petition 
to  the  Tsar,  expressing  their  own  needs  and  those  of  the 
peasantry,  were  met  by  a  hail  of  bullets  and  bayonets, 
and  since  the  Government  dispersed  the  first  Duma  for 
giving  timid  and  partial  expression  to  the  popular 
demands,  we  have  realized  that  we  cannot  expect  any 
amelioration  of  our  condition  from  the  autocratic 
Government,  which  by  its  nature  is  opposed  to  our 
demands.  It  is  our  sworn  enemy  "  (mandate  from  the 
Government  of  Perm). 

"  Remember  that  the  whole  people  is  with  you.  Do 
not  make  any  partial  concessions  to  the  Right,  but 
insist  on  full  popular  government,"  write  the  peasants 
of  Novo-Kubanskoye\ 


THE   EUROPEANIZATION  OF   THE   STATE     177 

"  Remember,"  said  a  mandate  from  the  same  pro- 
vince, "  that  the  people  have  sent  you,  not  to  petition 
Ministers  and  bow  down  to  them,  but  to  snatch  liberty 
from  them." 

"  We  do  not  elect  deputies  for  the  purpose  of  drafting 
laws  which,  since  they  have  to  pass  the  Council  of 
State  and  the  Star  Chamber,  will  never  see  the  light. 
No,  we  have  elected  you  in  order  that  you  may  fight  in 
the  Taurida  Palace  for  the  convocation  of  a  Constituent 
Assembly,  for  land  and  liberty  "  (mandate  of  the 
citizens  of  Tekaterinburg). 

The  Sebastopol  electors  beg  their  deputy  "  not  to 
stop  half-way  in  the  struggle  against  autocratic  govern- 
ment." 

The  majority  of  the  mandates,  like  that  from 
Tekaterinburg,  express  the  opinion  that  the  radical 
transformation  of  the  entire  political  system  requires 
the  convocation  of  a  Constituent  Assembly,  which  alone 
can  effect  pacification  and  secure  liberty  ;  and  for  this 
purpose  the  electors  offer  their  support. 

"  We  are  anxious,"  write  the  Mussulmans  of  Petro- 
pavlovsk,  "  to  keep  in  touch  with  the  Duma.  It  is  for 
you  to  organize  that  connection  with  us.  Let  our 
thoughts  and  feelings  become  those  of  the  Duma  ;  the 
victory  will  then  be  sure  and  final." 

"  In  the  struggle  with  the  Government  for  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  popular  demands,"  say  the  citizens  of  Maikop, 
"  the  Duma  must  rely  on  the  support  of  the  great  masses 
of  the  population  who  are  in  sympathy  with  it." 

The  peasants  of  the  Syzran  district  instruct  their 
deputy  as  follows  : — 

'  The  first  Duma,  which  rightly  championed  the 
people's  needs,  has  been  dissolved  because  the  people 
was  not  sufficiently  organized,  and  could  lend  no  support 
to  the  Duma.  We  therefore  request  you  to  undertake 
.  .  .  the"  organization  of  the  people  locally,  in  order 
that  at  the  decisive  moment  the  people  may  stand  up 
for  the  Duma  as  one  man.  Only  let  the  Duma  explain 
the  nature  of  the  support  needed,  so  as  to  avoid  mis-> 

12 


178  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

taken  and  isolated  acts,  and  the  whole  of  Russia  will 
stand  up  for  its  right  to  land  and  liberty,  which  we 
have  sent  you  to  obtain  for  us." 

The  same  idea  was  still  more  vigorously  expressed 
by  one  of  the  workingmen's  mandates  : — 

"  We  instruct  our  deputy  not  to  submit  to  the 
demands  of  the  Government,  and  not  to  return  to;  us 
without  having  carried  out  our  mandate.  If  the  gang 
of  torturers  of  the  people  should  disperse  you  with 
bayonets,  then  all  of  us  who  have  elected  you  will 
rise  in  defence  of  the  deputies  struggling  for  the  liberty 
and  happiness  of  the  people." 

Such  are  the  popular  desires  expressed  in  the  nakazy. 
Commenting  upon  them,  an  eminent  English  publicist 
remarks  : — 

"  Some  of  the  demands,  we  recognize,  are  in  advance 
of  the  political  and  social  conditions  obtaining  even  in 
the     most     liberally    governed    countries     of     Western 
Europe .      Their  great   importance  is  derived  from   the 
light  they  throw  upon  the  political  development  of  the 
Russian  masses.      Only  a  people  thai  has  arrived  at  a 
high  pitch   of  self-consciousness  could  have   produced 
such  documents  as  these.     They  constitute  a  powerful 
argument  in  favour  of  the  full  emancipation  of  the  pro- 
letariat from  the  state  of  semi-serfdom  in  which  it  still 
exists,  and  a  proof  that  Russia  is  now  more  than  ripe 
for    a    Constitution    based    on    democratic    principles. 
Those  who  object  that  the  transference  of  the  governing 
power  into  popular  hands  would  result  in  confusion  and 
anarchy  would  do  well  to  study  the  present  regime  in 
the  provinces,  where  every  official  is  a  law  unto  himself, 
and   where   clean   government,   free   from   tyranny   and 
corruption,    is   practically  unknown.      We   have   always 
had  great  faith  in  the  Russian  people,  and  are  convinced 
that,  once  the  deadening  influence  of  the   bureaucratic 
administration  has  been  shaken  off,  the  true  genius  of 
the  country  will  manifest  itself  in  a  manner  that  will 
compel   both   amazement  and  admiration." 


PART   THE    FOURTH 

EUROPEAN    TENDENCIES    IN    RUSSIAN 

LITERATURE 


CHAPTER    I 

The  theory  of  races — Non-Russian  blood  in  the  veins  of  Russian 
writers.  II.  The  formation  of  the  literary  language  and  its 
European  ingredients. 


I  AM  not  a  partisan  of  that  theory  of  races  which  seeks 
to  explain  the  various  phenomena  of  our  life  by  racial 
influences,  by  a  remote  heredity,  and  endeavours  to 
establish  a  more  or  less  impenetrable  barrier  between 
the  various  races.  This  theory  is  especially  inapplic- 
able to  Russia,  whose  population  is  composed  of  a 
great  mixture  of  different  races.  It  will  suffice  to  recall 
that  the  vielikoruss  people  (the  Great  Russian  people) 
is  composed  of  an  amalgam  of  the  Slav  element  and 
the   Finnish  element. 

But  there  is  perhaps  no  more  startling  proof  of  the 
insufficiency  of  the  theory  of  races  than  that  which  is 
afforded  by  Russian  literature,  in  which  representatives 
of  all  the  races  have  collaborated. 

A  Russo- Polish  writer  who  has  interested  himself  in 
this  question  has  established,  by  a  careful  inquiry,  that 
non-Russian  blood  has  often  flowed  in  the  veins  of 
Russian  writers. 

"  By  attentively  studying  the  biography  of  the 
Russian  writers,  one  recognizes  that  a  large  number. 
of  those  who  constitute  the  pride  and  glory  of  Russian 
literature,  a  considerable  proportion  of  its  lights,  its 
stars,  its  leaders,  and  its  '  kings,'  are  not  of  Russian 
origin  ;  that  they  are  of  mixed  blood,  that  they  are  not 
originally  Russian  in  the  precise  sense  of  the  word."  J 

1  S.  Librovitch,  Non-Russian  Blood  in  the  Veins  of  Russian  Writers 
(Russian  ed.,  Petrograd). 

181 


182  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

In  support  of  this  assertion  the  author  gives  us  the 
following  examples  : — 

The  real  creator  of  the  true  national  poetry  of  Russia, 
the  celebrated  Alexander  Pushkin,  had  as  a  maternal 
ancestor  an  Abyssinian  negro  who  married  a  German 
woman  ;  the  child  of  this  strange  inter-continental 
union  was  the  poet's  grandfather.  On  the  paternal 
side  Pushkin  had  among  his  ancestors  a  Prussian  immi- 
grant (who  entered  Russia  in  the  time  of  Alexander 
Nevsky,  and  who  was  probably  of  Slav  origin)  and 
an    Italian   woman. 

Another  great  Russian  poet,  Mikhail  Lermontov,  was 
of  Scottish  origin.  In  the  twelfth  century  there  lived 
in  Scotland  a  famous  bard,  Leirmont  or  Learmount  by 
name,  who  is  said  to  have  predicted  the  destinies  of 
his  country,  and  who  was  celebrated  by  Sir  .Walter 
Scott.  A  branch  of  his  family  emigrated  into  Poland, 
and  in  1 6 1 3  George  Leirmont  entered  the  Russian 
military  service  with  sixty  other  Scots  and  Irishmen, 
and  busied  himself,  under  the  Tsar  Alexei  Mikhailo- 
vitch,  reforming  the  first  regiment  of  regular  cavalry 
known  in  Russia. 

The  poet  Lermontov  was  extremely  proud  of  his 
extraction,  and  referred  to  it  in  his  verses  : — 

Why  am  I  not  a  bird,  a  crow  of  the  steppes 

Which  passed  just  now  above  me  ? 

Why  can  I  not  hover  in  the  heavens 

And  love  liberty  alone  ? 

Toward  the  West,  toward  the  West  I  would  direct  my  rapid 

flight : 
There  blossom  the  fields  of  my  ancestors, 
Where,  in  an  empty  castle  on  the  misty  mountains, 
Repose  their  forgotten  ashes. 
On  the  ancient  wall  their  hereditary  buckler 
And  their  rusted  sword  are  suspended. 
I  would  fly  above  the  buckler  and  the  sword 
And  with  my  wing  unhang  them. 

I  would  touch  with   my  wing  the   string   of   the   Scottish   harp, 
And  the  sound  would  die  away  in  the  vaulted  roof ; 
Heard  by  one  alone  and  by  one  alone  engendered, 
It  would  die  even  as  it  broke  the  silence. 


EUROPEAN   TENDENCIES   IN   LITERATURE      183 

Many  other  Russian  writers  were  of  foreign  origin. 
The  first  Russian  satirist,  Prince  Kantemir,  was  the  son 
of  a  Moldavian  sovereign  and  a  Greek  woman.  Another 
satirist,  who  was  also  the  great  Russian  publicist, 
Radishtshev,   was  of  Tartar  descent. 

The  father  of  Russian  romantic  poetry,  Vassili 
Jukovsky,  had  for  his  mother  a  Turkish  prisoner. 
His  contemporary  Delwig,  also  a  romantic  poet, 
belonged    to    a   noble    German   family. 

The  poet  Ogariov,  the  friend  of  Herzen,  had  Tartar 
ancestors.  Herzen  was  the  illegitimate  son  of  a  German 
woman  and  a  Russian  noble. 

The  brothers  Aksakov,  writers  and  founders  of  the 
Slavophile  movement,  counted  Norwegian  kings  among 
their    remote   forbears. 

The  well-known  novelist  and  writer  of  short  stories, 
Grigorovitch,  was  the  son  of  a  Frenchwoman,  an 
emigree . 

The  parents  of  Fete,  a  remarkable  lyric  poet,  were 
a  German  woman  and  a  Russian  noble. 

The  Jewish  people  has  given  many  poets  and 
novelists,  etc.,  to  Russia  ;  for  example,  the  poet 
Semion  Nadson,  whose  name  marks  an  epoch  in  the 
history  of  literature. 

Among  modern  writers  also  we  find  many  who  are 
not  of  Russian  origin. 

The  celebrated  Leonid  Andreev  is  the  son  of  a  Polish 
mother.  Balmont,  the  well-known  poet,  has  Scottish 
and  Scandinavian  ancestors  on  the  paternal  side,  and  on 
the  maternal  side  Tartars. 

This  enumeration  might  be  continued.  But  the  facts 
here  cited  are  enough  to  show  that  what  is  called  race 
does  not  play  a  decisive  part  in  the  formation  of  literary 
genius.  What  is  of  importance  is  the  historical  and 
social  milieu  in  which  this  genius  is  evolved  ;  and  in 
studying  the  European  influences  which  have  affected 
Russian  literature  we  should  occupy  ourselves  not  with 
anthropological  inquiries,  but  with  phenomena  of  a 
different    order   and   significance. 


184  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

II 

Before  speaking  of  the  Western  elements  introduced 
by  Russia  into  her  literature,  there  are  a  few  points  to 
be  considered  respecting  the  influence  of  Europe  in 
the  formation  of  the  literary  language  of  Russia. 

The  whole  historic  evolution  of  a  people  is  reflected 
in  its  language.  It  is  so  with  the  Russian  language, 
which  presents  many  highly  interesting  phenomena  in 
the  province  of  pure  linguistics  and  also  in  that  of 
general  history. 

The  popular  language  and  the  literary  language  of 
Russia  were  very  differently  formed.  In  the  first  are 
to  be  perceived  the  movement  of  the  population,  the 
colonization  of  the  great  Eastern  plain  by  Slavo-Russ 
tribes,  and  their  commerce  with  other  peoples,  Mongols, 
Finns,  Poles,  Lithuanians,  etc.  The  three  principal 
dialects  of  the  Russian  language — the  Great  Russian, 
Little  Russian,  and  White  Russian  (Vielikoruss,  Malo- 
russ  or  Ukrainian,  and  Bielorusis) — retain  traces  of  these 
contacts. 

As  for  the  literary  language,  the  Great  Russian  is, 
properly  speaking,  the  only  Russian  to  possess  such 
a  thing,  for  with  the  White  Russians  (who  inhabit 
the  country  bordering  on  Lithuania  and  Poland)  litera- 
ture is  not  yet  sufficiently  developed  to  possess  its 
means  of  expression,  and  with  the  Ukrainians,  although 
they  already  possess  a  very  rich  literature,  its  instru- 
ment of  expression  is  still  in  process  of  formation, 
and  is  nearer  the  popular  speech  than  literary  Great 
Russian.  It  is  also  subject  to  that  same  instability 
which  is  so  characteristic  of  the  popular  tongue  ; 
so  that  the  writers  of  the  Russian  Ukraine  em- 
ploy an  idiom  which  differs  perceptibly  from  that 
of  the  Ukrainian  writers  of  Bukovina  or  Galicia 
(Ruthenians). 

The  literary  language  of  the  Great  Russians  has 
formed  itself  upon  a  stable  and  well-defined  basis. 
In  this  it  differs  greatly  from  the  popular  tongue,  which 


EUROPEAN  TENDENCIES  IN   LITERATURE      185 

is  by  no  means  uniform,  and  is  composed  of  numerous 
differing  patois. 

The  formation  of  the  Great  Russian  literary  language 
may  be  divided  into  three  principal  phases,  two  of 
which  proceed  from  two  distinct  external  factors.  The 
first  phase  begins  with  the  evangelization  of  Russia  ; 
it  is  therefore  Bulgar  or  Graeco-Bulgar  in  character. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  Russia  received  Christianity 
from  Bulgaria,  or  rather  from  Macedonia,  whence  came 
also  the  clergy  and  the  first  religious  and  ecclesiastical 
books.  The  Russian  literary  language  was,  in  the 
beginning,  the  language  of  religion,  and  it  is  known 
by  the  name  of  the  "Slav  Church  language."  It  was 
entirely  "  foreign  "  to  that  of  the  people,  and  hardly 
understood  by  the  latter.  But  after  some  time  the 
second  language  became  diffused  into  the  first,  and  the 
written  language  approximated  to  the  living  popular 
speech.  However,  their  resemblance  is  chiefly  phonetic. 
In  its  lexicology  and  syntax  the  scholarly  language 
remained  Bulgaro -ecclesiastical.  In  this  language — 
Russian  by  consonance,  foreign  by  inflexion,  the  con- 
struction of  words,  and  the  turn  of  phrases — are  written 
the  first  historical  chronicles  and  the  first  juridical 
acts  of  the  principality  of  Kiev. 

After  the  removal  of  the  capital  from  Kiev  to 
Vladimir,  and  thence  to  Moscow,  an  urban  language 
sprang  up,  which  was  distinct  from  the  rural  tongue, 
and  which,  as  Moscow  increased  and  developed  into  a 
Grand  Duchy  and  a  Russian  Tsarstvo,  became  the 
language  of  the  State.  "  The  Governmental  Chan- 
celleries are  obliged  to  speak  from  Moscow  to  all 
Russia  in  a  comprehensible  language.  Thus  a  language 
of  the  Chancellery,  simple  and  precise,  which  is  not 
without  picturesqueness  and  expressive  power  ...  a 
finished,  and  perfected  language,  which  had  a  chance 
of  lasting  unchanged  as  long  as  the  needs  and  the 
mentality  of  which  it  was  born.  .  .  .  But  from  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  all  is  again  un- 
settled.    The   language  detaches   itself  from  its  quite 


186  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

recently  constituted  basis  and  moves  onward  at  random, 
accumulating,  without  any  discretion,  the  raw  material 
of  foreign  terms  and  concepts.  A  moment  comes  when 
Russian  writers  prefer,  not  without  reason,  to  have 
recourse  to  foreign  languages  in  order  to  express  them- 
selves with  sufficient  art  and  precision.  After  the  calm, 
the  solemnity,  and  the  exactitude  of  the  solid  Muscovite 
tongue,  convulsive  efforts  are  made  to  represent  the 
afflux  of  new  thoughts  and  feelings.  The  veil  of  uni- 
formity cast  over  the  literature  of  the  sixteenth  century 
disappears  as  by  enchantment."  > 

Thus  the  evolution  of  the  literary  language  in  Russia 
corresponds  with  the  general  development  of  the 
country.  The  linguistic  invasion  of  Russia  by  Europe, 
which  took  place  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  coincides  with  the  first  great  effort  to 
Europeanize  Russia  under  Peter  I.  The  two  move- 
ments do  not  merely  coincide  ;  they  are  profoundly 
correlated.  There  is  a  close  connection  between  the 
linguistic  imports  and  the  general  multiplication  of  com- 
munications between  Russia  and  Europe.  Commercial 
exchanges  brought  a  host  of  new  terms  into  the  Russian 
vocabulary,  names  of  articles  of  merchandise  and  the 
terms  defining  transactions.  The  adoption  of  European 
methods  by  the  Russian  Army  also  necessitated,  as 
we  have  seen,  the  employment  of  new  military  terms. 
The  same  thing  happened  in  the  case  of  Govern- 
ment institutions  :  almost  all  the  names  of  the  new 
organs  and  officials  (from  the  Senat  to  the  land  rat) 
were  borrowed  from  Europe. 

It  should  be  noted  that  even  in  the  days  of  Peter  I 
it  was  realized  that  these  importations  ought  not  to  be 
mechanical,  and  Peter  I  often  employed  himself  by 
correcting  the  translations  of  foreign  books  into 
Russian. 

The  Academician  A.  Chakhmatov  states  that  during 
the  first   half  of  the  eighteenth  century   "  the  Russian 

1  P.  Milukov,  Studies  in  Russian  Culture,  Fart  II,  p.  176  (Petersburg, 
1897). 


EUROPEAN  TENDENCIES   IN   LITERATURE      187 

tongue  was  placed  in  a  difficult  position  by  the  host 
of  foreign  words  which  invaded  it,  coming  from  the 
West  in  an  irresistible  stream."  '  But  during  the  second 
half  of  the  century  the  literary  language  was  already 
rapidly  assimilating  these  European  importations  which 
were  transforming  it.  Moreover,  at  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth  century  Europe  was  affecting  the  Russian 
language  in  a  different  manner  to  that  observed  at 
the  beginning  of  the  century.  Under  Peter  I  the 
European  additions  travelled  by  what  we  may  call 
the  official  path  :  that  of  translations  commissioned 
by  the  Government,  diplomatic  documents,  etc.  Under 
Catherine  II  the  Russian  writers  were  spontaneously 
delving  into  the  linguistic  wealth  of  Europe,  and  their 
acquisitions  were  of  a  different  kind.  They  were  not 
limited  to  technical  terms,  to  the  vocabularies  of  trade, 
industry,  and  government  ;  they  even  extended  to  the 
expressions  which  interpret  the  intellectual  phenomena 
peculiar  to  cultivated  minds,  abstract  ideas,  and  the 
movements  of  the  heart  and  the  soul. 

Karamzin  energetically  contributed  to  this  develop- 
ment. Leader  of  the  "sentimentalist  "  school,  he  could 
not  find,  in  the  old  literary  Russian,  all  that  he  needed 
to  depict  the  inward  life  of  his  characters.  To  remedy 
this  penury  of  sentimental  interpretation,  and  also  to 
build  up  the  vocabulary  required  for  his  historical  and 
philosophical  works,  he  created  a  great  number  of 
words,  proceeding  by  analogy  and  following  the  model 
of  the  Latin  tongues.  He  also  '  Europeanized  ' 
Russian  syntax,  introducing  more  flexible  and  more 
agreeable  constructions. 

This  reorganization  of  the  Russian  language  met  with 
considerable  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  extremer 
nationalists,  one  of  whom  (Shishkov)  published  a  violent 
protest  against  the  "  novelties  "  imported  by  Karamzin 
and  a  defence  of  the  "  old  style."  The  hostility  of 
Shishkov    and    his    followers    is    in    part    explained    by 

1  A.  Chakhmatov,  "The  Russian  Tongue,"  in  Brockhaus  and  Efron's 
Encyclopedia,  vol.  55  (Petersburg,  1899). 


188  RUSSIA]  AND   EUROPE 

the  exaggerations  which  certain  of  the  innovators  per- 
mitted themselves  ;  some  of  them  even  went  so  far 
as  to  say  that  they  detested  the  Russian  tongue  and 
preferred  the  French.  But  Karamzin  and  the  best 
of  the  protagonists  of  "'  Europeanization  "  were  in  no 
way  responsible  for  these  extravagances.  Karamzin 
did  not  "  denaturalize  "  the  literary  language  ;  on  the 
contrary,  he  put  life  into  it.  Bielinsky,  the  famous 
critic,  was  perfectly  right  when  he  asserted  that  "before 
Karamzin's  time  no  one  read,  for  the  little  there 
was  to  read  was  so  frightfully  heavy." 

But  Karamzin  was  obliged  to  seek  for  his  means  of 
expression  in  European  literature,  and  especially  in 
French  literature.  .When  asked  how  he  had  accom- 
plished this  transformation,  he  replied  that  "  he  had 
some  foreign  authors  in  his  mind,"  and  that  "  he  had 
in  the  first  place  imitated  them."  But  his  imitation 
was  not  blind  or  mechanical  ;  for,  as  M.  Haumant 
observes,  he  "  Russified  more  or  less  happily  '  the 
materials  (for  the  most  part  French)  which  entered 
into  the  construction  of  his  Russian  prose.  He  could 
not  therefore  be  accused  of  having  "'denaturalized' 
the  language  of  his  country  ;  but  he  made  it  fruitful 
by  means  of  the  powers  of  expression  which  he  brought 
to  it  from  the  West. 

What  Karamzin  did  for  prose,  others  did  for  poetry. 
"  The  pains  taken  by  the  poetasters  of  the  banks  of 
the  Moskva  to  achieve  the  elegance  of  their  colleagues 
on  the  banks  of  the  Seine,"  says  M.  Haumant,  "  were 
not  entirely  fruitless."  Those  rhymesters  of  the  early 
nineteenth  century,  who  had,  without  exception,  learned 
in  the  school  of  Europe,  prepared  the  way  for  the 
muse  of  Pushkin,  whose  style  was  thus  formed  upon 
the  teaching  of  foreign  authors,  and  whose  verse  was 
the  first  manifestation — as  yet  unequalled — of  the  Russo- 
European  synthesis  in  Russian  poetry. 

Since  the  days  of  Karamzin  and  Pushkin  the  literary 
Russian  language  has  had  the  benefit  of  a  solid 
foundation  for   its   subsequent   development,   which   has 


EUROPEAN  TENDENCIES  IN  LITERATURE      189 

been  entirely  national  and  original  ;  but  it  will  not 
forget  that  much  of  the  material  of  these  foundations 
came  from  Europe  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth 
century. 

This  language  was,  at  the  time  of  its  formation, 
and  is  now,  the  language  employed  by  the  world  of 
thought  ;  it  is  alien  to  the  people.  The  Europeaniza- 
tion  of  the  language,  like  the  process  of  Europeaniza- 
tion  in  general,  has  not  yet  touched  the  masses. 
Although  the  spoken  language  of  the  cities  is  very 
close  to  the  written  language,  the  heavy,  rustic  idiom 
in  common  use  among  the  moujiks  is  still  far 
removed  from  it.  But  the  diffusion  of  the  Press,  which 
is  spreading  from  the  towns  into  the  country,  the  de- 
velopment of  political  life,  and  the  awakening  of  the 
rural  population  to  intellectual  interests  and  the  pro- 
gress of  popular  education  are  gradually  lessening  the 
difference. 


CHAPTER    II 

I .  The  literature  of  the  people  and  the  literature  of  the  cultivated 
writers — The  first  Western  influences.  II.  The  importation  from 
Europe  of  literary  forms  and  subjects. 

I 

Foreign  influences  were  plainly  perceptible  in  Russian 
literature  even  in  the  earliest  period,  when  popular 
poetry  and  oral  tradition  had  their  birth.  In  the  early 
written  literature  they  were  even  more  perceptible. 

The  written  literature  appropriated  and  absorbed 
these  foreign  influences  far  more  skilfully  than  did 
the  popular  poetry  ;  intentional  imitation  being  plainly 
perceptible,  while  in  folk-lore  the  borrowing  of  foreign 
elements  was  effected  unconsciously. 

The  general  origin  of  foreign  inspiration,  its  source, 
and  its  paths  of  diffusion,  differed  considerably  in  both 
literatures.  Oral  poetry  in  Russia  is  often  the  daughter 
of  the  East,  while  the  written  literature  draws  vitality 
from  the  West  ;  in  the  case  of  the  latter  Asia  gives 
way  to  Europe. 

But  this  change  of  orientation  was  gradual.  In 
its  beginnings  Russian  literature  was  forced  to  remain 
under  the  severe  discipline  of  the  Byzantine  Church 
and  its  ascetic  subjects.  This  quenched  the  radiance 
of  poetic  imagination.  Not  until  the  sixteenth  century 
and  afterwards  did  the  literary  influence  of  the  West 
hew  out  a  road  for  itself — a  road  which  was  not  at 
first  direct,  but  which  followed  a  long  and  roundabout 
course. 

The  first  literary  intermediaries  between  Russia  and 

190 


EUROPEAN   TENDENCIES   IN   LITERATURE      191 

Europe     were     the     Southern     Slavs — Bulgars,     Sorbs, 
and    Dalmatians— whose    relations    with    their    northern 
brothers  were   facilitated   by   the  common  alphabet   in- 
vented in  the  ninth  century  by  Saint  Cyril,  the  famous 
apostle  of  the  Slavs.     Through  them  European   litera- 
ture   found   its   way    into   Russia,    and    there   produced 
quite    a    spiritual     revolution.      The     "  Slavo-Roman  " 
novels   (as  the  Russian  historians  and  philologists   call 
them) — that  is  to  say,  the  Slav  version  of  the  various 
romances   of  chivalry    (Tristan  and   Iseult,   the   Knight 
Bova,    Attila,    the    Fair    Helen,    etc.)    made    their    way 
through  Russia  and  gave  rise  to  a  new  world  of  ideas 
and     feelings     and     sympathies.       The     exploits     and 
adventures  of  knights,  the  glorification  of  their  heroism, 
and   other   similar   subjects   which   furnished  the   matter 
of    the    "  Slavo-Roman    novels,"    afforded    a    diversion, 
a  relaxation,  to  minds  wearied  by  the  monotonous  moral 
and  religious   parenetics  which   for  centuries  had   been 
their    only    mental     fare.       The     legends     of    France, 
Brittany,  and  Italy,  having  passed  through  Serbia  and 
Dalmatia,    reached   the   Muscovites,    in   whom   they    re- 
awakened the   poetic   traditions   of  the  period  of   Kiev, 
with  its  epic  songs    (byliny),  which  had  been  pitilessly- 
persecuted    and    exterminated    by    the    Church.      Some 
of  these  productions    (for  example,  the  Italian  romance 
of  the  Knight  Bova)  became,  and  have  remained  until 
our    days,    the    favourite    reading    of   the   great    masses 
of  the  Russian  people. 

Love,  as  a  subject,  was  an  especial  novelty  to  the 
Russians,  who  had  for  so  long  been  subjected  to  an 
ethical  system  of  Byzantine  origin,  which,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  teaching  of  the  Church,  strove  to  depict 
woman  as  an  "  evil  being,"  a  "  diabolic  vessel,"  while 
the  story  -  tellers  and  poets  of  the  West  idealized 
her  and  openly  professed  the  cult  of  beauty  and 
of  love. 

In  the  seventeenth  century  it  was  through  her  two 
most  cultivated  neighbours— Poland  and  the  Ukraine, 
then  to  a  great  extent  Polish  in  thought  and  language 


192  RUSSIA   AND  EUROPE 

— that  Muscovite  Russia  received  her  literary  importa- 
tions from  Europe. 

'■'  In  Polo-Ukrainian  attire  they  came  to  us — 
Melusina,  the  gracious  fairy,  who  mysteriously  trans- 
forms herself  into  a  little  snake  ;  Count  Peter  of 
Provence  with  his  faithful  Magellonne  ;  Prince  Bruns- 
wig, followed  everywhere  by  his  lion  ;  pairs  of  lovers, 
courageous  knights,  touching  or  pathetic  visions."  • 

At  the  same  period  Russia  became  familiar  with 
the  gay  scenes  of  the  celebrated  humorous  writers 
in  whom  the  West  abounds,  the  French  fabliaux,  and 
the  episodes  of  Boccaccio's  Decameron.  This  revela- 
tion, says  Professor  Veselovsky,  who  has  made  a  special 
study  of  European  influences  in  Russian  prose  and 
poetry,  M  produced  a  definite  alteration  in  the  tastes 
and  judgments  of  the  reader,  by  at  last  setting  free 
the  eternal  aspirations,  passion,  love,  laughter,  dreams 
— all  that  was  oppressed  by  the  doctrine  of  abstinence 
and  false  modesty." 

II 

European  literature,  while  it  developed  the  taste  of 
the  Russians,  was  also  a  school,  in  which  the  foremost 
representatives  of  prose  and  poetry  were  glad  to  study. 
Before  this  period  there  were  only  two  forms  of  literary 
production  :  the  lietopis — that  is,  the  historical  chronicle 
— and  the  religious  homily.  Europe  taught  Russia  to 
employ  other  forms  ;    the  ode,  the  drama,  the  romance. 

In  the  seventeenth  century  the  south-west  of  Russia 
(and  Kiev  in  particular)  saw  the  creation  of  literary 
centres,  where  writers  composed  syllabic  verses  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  of  pseudo-classicism,  and  attempted 
to  build  up  dramas  of  a  sort.  An  embryo  theatre 
even  was  established,  organized  by  the  students  of 
the  ecclesiastical  colleges  of  the  Ukraine.  At  the  same 
time,  society  for  the  first  time  made  the  acquaintance 
of  the  periodical  newspaper.     It  is  true  that  the  first 

1  Alexis  Veselovsky,  Western  Influence  in  Modern  Russian  Literature, 
2nd  ed.  (Moscow,  1896),  p.  24. 


EUROPEAN  TENDENCIES  IN  LITERATURE      193 

Russian  newspaper  was  founded  very  much  later,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  in  fact,  but 
in  the  seventeenth  century  the  Government  caused  foreign 
newspapers  to  be  translated  into  Russian. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  the 
literature  of  the  West  had  a  direct  effect  upon  Russia, 
independent  of  Poland  as  an  intermediary.  Russian 
writers  began  to  come  into  immediate  contact  with 
their  European  masters. 

The  first  Russian  satirist,  Prince  Antioch  Kantemir, 
who  attacked  ignorance  and  glorified  knowledge,  main- 
tained personal  relations  with  Montesquieu,  Voltaire, 
and  others.  It  is  obvious  that  he  found  inspiration  in 
Boileau,  for  he  repeats  almost  word  for  word  the  famous 
avowal  that  "  the  word,  in  order  that  it  may  delight 
the  reader,  has  often  cost  the  author  tears."  "  Hes 
laughs  in  his  verses,"  says  Kantemir,  "  but  in  his  heart 
he  weeps  over  unprincipled  men."  He  also  imitated 
La  Bruyere,  Mathurin  R6gnier,  and  Voltaire. 

Another  Russian  poet  of  the  first  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  Vassili  Tretiakovsky,  learned  the 
poetic  art  abroad.  He  travelled  in  Holland  and  in 
France,  and  attended  lectures  at  the  University  of  Paris. 
Lacking  money,  he  had  to  go  afoot  for  a  great  part 
of  the  journey  to  Paris.  He  said  of  this  city  that 
"  only  a  man  whose  soul  is  bestial  can  fail  to  love 
this  beautiful  spot,  these  beloved  bank's  of  the  Seine." 
The  poetical  talent  of  Tretiakovsky  was  not  very  re- 
markable (he  wrote  better  verses  in  French  than  in 
Russian),  but  he  was  the  true  pioneer  of  Russian  versifi- 
cation. By  comparing  it  with  French  versification  he 
convinced  himself  that  Russian  versification  must  be 
based  upon  the  tonic  and  not  on  the  syllabic  principle. 
Thanks  to  the  revolution  which  he  effected,  Russian 
poetry  was  able  to  develop  freely,  liberated  from  the 
conventional  rules  of  Latin  or  syllabic  versification. 

Another  lyric  poet,  Bogdanovitch,  the  immediate  pre- 
cursor of  Pushkin  (he  wrote  late  in  the  eighteenth 
century),  was  also  a  pupil  of  the  French.     The  sub- 

13 


194  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

ject  of  his  romance  Dushenka  is  borrowed  from  La 
Fontaine's  Psyche.  He  also  translated  poems  by 
Marmontel,  Voltaire,  etc. 

Tragedy  too  was  an  importation  from  Europe. 
The  pioneer  in  this  department  of  letters,  Sumarokov 
(1717-77),  was  known  as  "the  Russian  Racine,"  and 
he  certainly  attempted  to  imitate  Racine — and  also 
Voltaire.  He  even  wrote  a  poem  in  glorification  of 
these  two  poets  and  Moliere,  in  which  he  expressed 
the  conviction  that  "  Moliere's  Tartufe  will  not  be 
forgotten  so  long  as  the  world  endures."  Sumarokov 
was  also  the  founder  of  Russian  journalism  ;  he  estab- 
lished a  monthly  review,  the  forerunner  of  the  periodical 
publications  of  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
These  early  examples  of  Russian  journalism  were  still 
imitations  of  European  journals  ;  they  were  merely 
copies  of  the  English  Spectator  and  other  publications 
of  the  kind.  All  the  Russian  contemporaries  of  the 
Spectator  were  full  of  translations  and  adaptations  of 
articles  appearing  in  the  Spectator.  In  this  connec- 
tion we  may  mention  that  the  form  of  the  Vision  of 
Mirza,  a  poem  by  the  celebrated  writer  of  odes, 
Derjavin  (1743-18 16),  was  taken  from  the  allegorical 
poem  by  Addison,  published,  under  the  same  title,  in 
the  Spectator. 

At  the  same  period  two  other  forms  of  literature 
were  developed  in  Russia  :  the  comedy  and  the  fable. 
In  these,  again,  the  Russian  authors,  even  the  most 
independent  and  the  most  truly  national,  were  merely 
the  docile  disciples  of  Europe.  In  this  connection  the 
evolution  of  talent  in  the  well-known  fabulist  Krylov  is 
extremely  interesting.  He  began  by  writing  tragedies, 
following  the  rules  of  the  French  classics.  Then  he 
wrote  comic  operas  and  comedies,  in  which  he 
borrowed  from  Moliere,  Beaumarchais,  and  other  French 
writers.  Krylov 's  comedy  A  Lesson  for  Young  Women 
is  word  for  word  a  reproduction  of  Les  Precieuses 
Ridicules.  When  Krylov  finally  devoted  himself  exclu- 
sively to  the  fables  which  made  him  famous  not  only 


EUROPEAN  TENDENCIES   IN   LITERATURE      195 

in  Russia  but  throughout  the  world,  he  was  still  follow- 
ing in  the  footsteps  of  his  Greek  and  French  originals. 
The  French  biographer  of  Krylov,  M.  Fleury,  and  a 
number  of  Russian  critics  have  demonstrated  that 
Krylov  imitated  La  Fontaine  and  remained  an  adapter 
even  in  those  fables  which  he  professed  to  regard  as 
original  and  which  seemed  to  bear  all  the  marks  of 
invention . 

As  for  the  comic  writers,  the  two  best  known  at  the 
end  of  the  eighteenth  and  beginning  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  were  Count  Kapnist  and  Fonvizin.  In 
Kapnist's  well-known  comedy  Tabeda  (Trickery),  which 
vigorously  attacks  the  venal  and  inequitable  justice  of 
Russia,  we  find  traces  of  the  Misanthrope  of  Moliere, 
and  one  of  the  principal  characters  in  this  comedy  is 
almost  the  twin  brother  of  Alceste.  Fonvizin,  the  father 
of  Russian  comedy,  and  indeed  of  the  Russian  theatre, 
presents  a  still  more  curious  example  of  Western  influ- 
ence. Fonvizin  was  a  militant  opponent  of  "  Gallo- 
mania " — that  is,  the  excessive  admiration  professed  by 
Russian  society  for  French  literature,  French  ideas, 
French  manners.  Nevertheless,  he  himself,  in  his 
comedies,  "  subjected  French  authors  to  a  devastating 
invasion "  (in  the  words  of  M.  Veselovsky),  taking 
from  them  whatever  he  could.  He  plundered  Duclos, 
La  Bruyere,  Voltaire,  La  Rochefoucauld,  etc.,  and  even 
went  to  the  length  of  actual  plagiarism.  What  is 
more,  the  very  comedy  in  which  he  strikes  his  shrewdest 
blows  at  "  Gallomania  " — his  Ivanushka — is  by  no 
means  an  original  and  national  work,  but  a  mere  adapta- 
tion of  a  comedy  by  Holberg,  the  Danish  author  of 
Jean  of  France,  the  hero  of  which  was  a  young  Dane 
who  was  over-Gallicized.  Fonvizin  did  not  even  change 
the  name  of  the  leading  character,  but  merely  trans- 
lated it,  Ivanushka  being  the  diminutive  of  Ivan  or 
John  or  Jean. 

To  close  this  examination  of  the  origins  of  the  various 
forms  and  departments  of  Russian  literature,  we  must 
not    omit    to    mention    what    in    Russia    is    known    as 


196  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

"  publicist  "  literature,  that  is,  the  literature  of  political 
and  social  propaganda,  which  plays  an  enormous  part 
in  Russian  life.  This  species  of  literature  made  its 
first  appearance  at  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
and  its  first  memorable  example  was  the  Voyage  from 
Petersburg  to  Moscow  by  Radishtshev.  This  "  book, 
which  suffered  greatly  "  (like  its  author),  which  was 
placed  on  the  Index  by  the  Russian  Government,  and 
was  prohibited  for  a  term  of  a  hundred  years  (  ! ),  con- 
tained a  fiery  and  audacious  protest  against  the  horrors 
of  despotic  rule  and  of  serfdom.  A  piece  of  noble 
audacity,  it  proceeded  directly  from  two  foreign  books  : 
Sterne's  Sentimental  Journey  through  France  and  Italy 
(1796),  and  the  Philosophical  and  Political  History  of 
European  Trade  and  Settlements  in  the  East  and  Wsest 
Indies  (The  Hague,  1774).  To  the  English  author 
Radishtshev  owes  the  outward  form  of  his  work  and  a 
whole  series  of  episodes  ;  to  the  French  author,  the 
condemnation  of  Indian  slavery,  to  which  Russian  serf- 
dom bore  a  great   resemblance. 

It  is  thus  clearly  proved  that  the  most  celebrated 
monuments  of  eighteenth  century  Russian  literature  are 
the  offspring  of  European  literature — and  of  French 
literature  especially  ;  and  that  the  principal  literary 
forms  and  models  reached  us  from  the  iWest.  The 
eighteenth  century  was  for  Russian  writers  the  didactic 
century,  during  which  they  were  shaping  themselves 
in  the  school  of  Europe. 

The  two  first  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century  also 
belong  to  this  period.  The  best  Russian  novelist  of 
this  period,  Karamzin,  found  the  type  of  his  sentimental 
romances  in  Rousseau  (La  Nauvelle  Heh'ise)  and 
Goethe  (Werthei*).  The  best-known  poet  of  this  period, 
Jukovsky,  wrote  ballads  modelled  on  those  of  Burger, 
and  other  German  romantics,  and  elegies  in  imitation 
of  European  poets. 

It  was  only  towards  the  end  of  the  second  half  of 
the  nineteenth  century  that  the  mighty  trio  arose — 
Pushkin,  Lermontov,  and  Gogol — and  Russian  literature 


EUROPEAN  TENDENCIES  IN   LITERATURE      197 

weaned  itself  from  its  pfarent,  and  began  to  lead  a  truly 
independent  and  national  existence.  Not  that  it  was 
thenceforth  closed  to  all  foreign  suggestion.  The  genial 
creations  of  Pushkin,  Lermontov,  and  Gogol,  like  those 
of  their  predecessors,  were  matured  by  the  beneficent 
warmth  diffused  by  the  literature  of  the  West.  But 
mechanical  and  explicit  reproduction  was  replaced  by 
an  organic  appropriation  and  a  national  transformation 
of  international  ideas  and  expressions. 

Russian  literature  still  keeps  its  eyes  fixed  upon 
Europe  ;  perhaps  more  steadily  than  of  old  ;  but  it 
no  longer  follows  in  another's  wake,  like  a  vessel  under 
tow  ;    it  moves  upon   its  own   course. 


CHAPTER    III 

I.  Various  European  influences  in  Russian  literature — Classicism, 
sentimentalism,  and  romanticism — Shakespeare  in  Russia.  II. 
Russian  realism.  III.  Byronism  in  Russia — Dostoievsky's  opinion 
of  Byronism. 


My  readers  will  understand  that  European  influence 
in  Russian  literature  is  not  confined  to  the  formal  side 
of  the  latter — to  the  language  and  the  different  creative 
forms.  It  has  also  affected  the  spirit  of  literary  pro- 
duction in  Russia,  and  all  the  principal  "  movements  " 
of  European  literature  of  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth 
centuries  will  be  found  in  Russian  literature,  from  classi- 
cism to  symbolism   (or  even,  if  you  will,  to  futurism  1). 

The  literary  movements  of  Western  Europe  find  their 
way  into  Russia,  and  there  undergo  transformation. 
Some  of  them  strike  only  very  feeble  roots  into  Russian 
soil  ;  others,  on  the  contrary,  become  thoroughly 
acclimatized  and   yield   remarkable    fruit. 

A  French  historian,  M.  Andre"  Lirondelle  (Professor 
in  the  University  of  Lille),  published  some  three  years 
ago  a  very  interesting  work  on  Shakespeare  in  Russia. 
This  volume,  which  is  a  true  literary  incarnation  of 
the  Anglo-Franco-Russian  alliance  (the  work  of  a 
French  scholar  investigating  the  influence  upon  Russian 
literature  of  a  great  English  writer  !),  affords  us  excellent 
concrete  material  for  the  formation  of  an  exact  idea 
as  to  the  general  character  and  the  relative  power  of 
the  various  literary  movements  in  Russia. 

The  Russians  made  their  first  acquaintance  with 
Shakespeare  perhaps  in  the  seventeenth  century.     But 

196 


EUROPEAN  TENDENCIES   IN   LITERATURE      199 

this  first  acquaintance  was  neither  extensive  nor  pro- 
found, and  down  to  the  end  of  the  following  century 
the  influence  of  Shakespeare  was  small  in  the  extreme. 
This  will  be  readily  understood,  for  the  eighteenth 
century  was  an  age  of  classicism.  Even  at  the  begin- 
ning of  this  century  a  well-known  Russian  writer — 
Feofan  Prokopovitch — gave  evidence  of  "a  classic 
temperament,"  and  derided  the  liberties  taken  by  the 
Russian  imitators  of  the  Jesuit  dramas  :  "  The  Tsars, 
on  their  stage,  utter  imbecilities  ;  they  weep  like  women 
and  speak  like  artisans,"  he  indignantly  complains.  A 
historian  of  Russian  literature,  citing  this  remark,  con- 
cludes with  justice  :  "  With  such  ideas  Feofan  would 
certainly  have  criticized  Shakespeare  and  exalted 
Corneille  and  Racine."  1 

During  the  whole  of  the  eighteenth  century  the 
literary  influence  of  France  became  more  firmly  estab- 
lished in  Russia,  and  the  influence  of  classicism  increased 
simultaneously.  And  it  was  through  the  medium  of 
his  French  translators  and  critics  that  Shakespeare  made 
his  way  into  Russian  literature.  He  was  a  "  Frenchi- 
fied "  Shakespeare.  But  he  nevertheless  helped  to 
weaken  the  influence  of  French  classicism,  because,  as 
M.  Lirondelle  very  justly  remarks,  the  Russian  tempera- 
ment itself  was  an  aid  to  the  diffusion  of  the  Shake- 
spearian influence.  The  propaganda  of  the  new  German 
school  of  drama  (that  of  Lessing)  was  also  of  assistance. 
The  protest  of  this  school  against  the  narrowness  of 
the  classic  school  was  bound  to  be  extremely  effective 
in  Russia.  "  To  speak  of  the  abrogation  of  rules, 
to  recommend  simplicity  and  what  is  natural,  was  to 
gain  one's  cause  beforehand  with  minds  impatient  of 
constraint."  2 

However,  we  must  not  exaggerate  the  extent  of  the 
anti-classical  reaction  which  took  place  in  the  time 
of  Catherine  II.  The  liberation  from  the  rules  of  the 
classical   drama    was    only    formal    and    external.      As 

1  Andre  Lirondelle,  Shakespeare  en  Russie,  pp.  14-15  (Paris,  191 2). 
■  Ibid.  p.  32. 


200  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

for  the  true  Shakespearian  spirit,  it  was  still  unknown 
to  the  Russian  literature  of  that  period.  The  best 
proofs  of  this  statement  are  the  dramatic  works  of 
Catherine  II,  who  renounced  the  "  three  unities  "  of 
classicism  and  imitated  Shakespeare  in  the  construction 
of  her  historic  dramas,  but  was  at  the  same  time  anxious 
that  history  and  the  reality  "  should  not  be  too  dis- 
agreeable." In  her  "  imitations  "  of  Shakespeare 
Catherine  misrepresented  him  rather  than  imitated  him', 
and  the  most  original  of  Shakespeare's  types  suffer, 
at  her  hands,  metamorphoses  which  are  utterly  in- 
credible. For  example,  in  one  of  her  plays  "  FalstafT, 
a  Flemish  drunkard,"  the  whale  with  belly  swollen 
with  tuns  of  oil  that  is  cast  ashore  at  .Windsor,  has 
become  an  elegant  coxcomb,  always  dressed,  shod,  and 
barbered  in  the  latest  fashion.  Considerations  of  a 
political  order  entered  into  literature.  Catherine  elimi- 
nated from  her  imitations  of  Shakespeare  every  really 
popular  or  democratic  element.  In  "  a  free  adaptation  " 
of  Timon  of  Athens  she  suppressed',  for  example,  all 
mention  of  the  Greek  democracy  and  its  political  con- 
flicts. 

The  age  of  Catherine  was  too  deeply  steeped  in 
"  enlightened  despotism  "  and  false  classicism  to  adopt 
the  robust  and  popular  realism  of  Shakespeare.  These 
are  the  words  in  which  a  Russian  review,  in  1769, 
expressed    the    prevailing    opinion    of   Shakespeare  : — 

"  Shakespeare,  that  old  tragedian,  still  adored  by 
the  English,  had  thoughts  of  a  very  lofty  order,  and 
was  witty  and  scholarly,  but  wayward,  and  his  taste 
was  bad.  All  his  tragedies  have  now  become  curious 
farces,  in  which  the  characters  are  described  and  inter- 
mingled without  selection.  In  his  Julius  Ccesar, 
pleasantries  which  would  be  natural  to  coarse  Roman 
artisans  are  introduced  into  the  very,  important  scene 
between  Brutus  and  Cassius." 

This  was  written  in  1769.  Twenty  years  had  not 
elapsed  when  a  very,  different  opinion  was  expressed. 
Karamzin,  the  leader  of  the  "  sentimentalist  "  movement, 


EUROPEAN  TENDENCIES  IN  LITERATURE      201 

published  in  1787  a  translation  of  Julius  Ccesar,  and 
in  the  preface  to  his  translation  he  speaks  of  Shake- 
speare as  follows  : — 

"  Few  writers  have  penetrated  human  nature  so  pro- 
foundly as  Shakespeare  j  few  have  known  so  intimately 
as  this  astonishing  artist  all  the  most  secret  forces  of 
man,  his  most  hidden  motives,  the  individuality  of  every, 
passion,  of  every  temperament,  of  every  manner  of  life. 
All  his  magnificent  pictures  directly  imitate  nature  ; 
all  the  changing  lights  of  these  pictures  astonish  those 
who  examine  them  attentively  ;  in  his  work  every  class 
of  mankind,  every  age,  every,  passion,  and  every 
character  speaks  its  own  language.  For  every  thought 
he  finds  an  image,  for  every  feeling  an  expression, 
for  every  movement  of  the  soul  the  best  interpretation." 

Karamzin  defends  Shakespeare  against  the  attacks 
of  "  the  celebrated  sophist  Voltaire  "  {sic),  who  ,4  strove 
to  prove  that  Shakespeare  was  an  indifferent  author, 
full  of  great  and  numerous  defects,"  and  who  held  that 
the  tragedies  of  Shakespeare  were  "  tragico-lyrico- 
pastoral  farces,  without  plan,  without  unity,  with  no 
connection  between  one  scene  and  the  next  ;  a  dis- 
agreeable mixture  of  the  base  and  the  sublime." 
Karamzin  explains  Voltaire's  opinion  by  personal  motives 
— and  asserts  that  "  being  indebted  to  Shakespeare  for 
the  best  elements  of  his  tragedy,  Voltaire  feared  to 
praise  Shakespeare  lest  he  should  thereby  abase  him- 
self." 

"That  Shakespeare  did  not  observe  the  rules  of 
the  theatre  is  true,"  continues  Karamzin.  "  The  real 
cause  of  this  non-observance  was,  I  believe,  his  ardent 
imagination,  which  could  not  subdue  itself  to  any  pre- 
scribed rule.  His  mind  soared  like  an  eagle,  and 
could  not  measure  its  flight  by  the  measure  of  a  sparrow. 
...  He  did  not  wish  to  confine  his  imagination  within 
limits  ;  he  considered  nature  only,  caring  for  nothing 
else.  ...  His  genius,  like  the  genius  of  nature,  em- 
braced the  sun  and  the  atoms  in  its  gaze." 

But   although    the    Russian    "  sentimentalists  "   were 


202  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

better  able  to  appreciate  Shakespeare  than  the  repre- 
sentatives of  pseudo-classicism,  they  were  as  yet  unable 
to  grasp  the  real  meaning  of  "  Shakespearism."  The 
violent  passions  of  Shakespeare's  heroes  and  his  brutal 
realism  were  too  much  for  the  tender  sentimentalists. 
One  experiences  a  very  curious  impression  on  observing 
their  endeavours  to  discover  "  melancholy  "  in  Shake- 
speare, and  on  reading  their  lamentations  over  the 
shocking  attitude  of  his  buffoons,  who  offend  our  sensi- 
tive "  melancholies  "  by  their  noisy  cries  and  vulgar 
pleasantries. 

The  writers  of  the  romantic  period,  which  in  Russia, 
as  everywhere,  followed  the  period  of  sentimentalism, 
seek  to  exploit  Shakespeare  to  the  advantage  of  their 
own  literary  school.  Russian  romantic  poetry  was 
strongly  influenced  by  its  German  sister,  and  followed 
the  latter  in  its  preference  for  the  fantastic  and 
mysterious.  And  these  are  the  qualities  which  our 
romantic  poets  discover  in  Shakespeare,  while  his  realism 
offends  them  almost  as  greatly  as  it  revolted  our  senti- 
mentalists. For  example,  the  leader  of  the  romantic 
school  in  Russia,  Jukovsky,  "  is  fascinated  by  the 
terrifying  scenes  of  Macbeth,  the  fantastic  witches,  the 
monologue  which  precedes  the  crime,  the  somnambulism 
of  Lady  Macbeth."  But  "  the  pleasantries  of  Shake- 
speare strike  him  as  lacking  in  refinement."  l  Never- 
theless, Shakespeare  is  officially  classified  by  the 
romantic  critics  and  philosophers  of  Russia  as  among 
the  romantic  poets,  and  his  works  "  were  the  subject 
of  many  great  debates  in  our  '  philosophical  clubs  ' 
of  the  years  1830-40."  The  youthful  members  of 
these  clubs  (of  which  I  shall  speak  presently)  drew 
upon  the  Shakespearian  drama  for  material  to  illustrate 
the  abstract  ideas  of  their  masters,  the  German  philo- 
sophers   (Schelling,   Fichte,  and   Hegel). 

But  at  this  same  period  Pushkin — first  of  all  the 
Russian  writers — attained  to  a  thorough  understanding 
and  a  just  appreciation  of  Shakespeare,  and  expressed 

1  A.  Lirondelle,  op.  cit.  p.  128. 


EUROPEAN  TENDENCIES  IN  LITERATURE      203 

the  opinion  that  the  popular  laws  of  the  English  drama 
were  better  suited  to  the  Russian  theatre  than  the 
"  courtly  tradition  "  of  the  school  of  Racine.  And  in 
his  historical  drama  Boris  Godunov  Pushkin  faithfully 
observed  the  laws  of  the  Shakespearian  drama.  Boris 
Godunov  became  the  starting-point  of  the  new  dramatic 
art  and  of  the  new  Russian  literature  in  general  ;  the 
watchword  of  the  latter  being  realism. 

II 

All  who  are  acquainted  with  Russian  literature  and 
are  able  to  appreciate  its  function  consider  that  its 
realism  constitutes  its  principal  virtue  and  attraction. 
And  it  is  this  realism  which  makes  it  an  international 
literature.  The  connection  between  the  realistic  char- 
acter of  Russian  literature  and  its  universal  quality  is 
very  well  defined  by  M.  Venguerov  in  a  recent  volume. 
This  is  what  he  says  : — 

"  Are  not  all  the  great  Russian  writers  at  the  same 
time  international  writers?  Must  we  not  place  them 
in  the  front  rank  of  humanity?  ...  If  we  limit  the 
comparison  to  the  modern  period  of  Russian  literature 
—that  is,  to  the  second  half  of  the  nineteenth  century — 
and  if  we  enumerate  only  the  best-known  authors,  we 
see  that  its  place  is  quite  different.  Are  the  works  of 
Tolstoy,  Turgenev,  and  Dostoievsky  on  the  same  level 
as  the  English  and  American  productions  of  the  same 
period,  the  most  eminent  of  which  are  the  novels  of 
George  Eliot  and  Mrs.  Beecher  Stowe,  the  short  stories 
of  Bret  Harte,  the  nebulous  poetry  of  Browning,  the 
sugary  idylls  of  Tennyson?  Are  they  on  a  level  with 
the  contemporary  literature  of  Germany,  the  most 
notable  examples  of  which  bear  the  names  of  Auerbach, 
Freitag,  Spielhagen,  and  Paul  Heise?  Lastly,  is  the 
place  of,  Russian  literature  quite  on  the  same  level  with 
that  of  French  literature,  although  this  is  illumined  by 
such  talents  as  those  of  Dumas  fits,  Flaubert,  and  Guy 
de   Maupassant? 

"  No  ;  we  may  say  it  without  any  chauvinism  ;  in  the 


204  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

individual  genius  of  its  protagonists  and,  above  all,  in 
its  fundamental  tendencies,  the  Russian  literature  of 
the  second  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  is  absolutely 
on  a  higher  plane  than  the  modern  literature  of  Western 
Europe,  which  reached  its  apogee  not  in  the  second 
but  in  the  first  half  of  the  century,  with  Goethe,  Schiller, 
Heine,  Byron,  Balzac,  Hugo,  George  Sand,  Dickens, 
etc.  Has  not  realism' — which  quite  recently,  in  Europe, 
appeared  to  be  the  last  phase  of  literary  progress — has 
not  realism,  with  us,  been  predominant  for  some  eighty 
years  ?  And  again,  can  any  man  with  a  cultivated  sense 
of  the  artistic  fail  to  realize  how  far  the  famous  Euro- 
pean 'realism'  of  1870-80,  so  nearly  akin  to  porno- 
graphy and  absence  of  the  ideal,  is  inferior  to  the 
realism  of  the  Russian  writers?  With  the  Russians  life 
is  represented  with  a  fidelity  which  amounts  to  complete 
reproduction,  and  this  reproduction,  which  attains  the 
very  limits  of  the  actual,  is  yet  illumined  by  the  ideal 
and  full  of  a  love  of  humanity  of  which  there  is  not  even 
a  trace  in  the  greater  European  realists.  .  ,.  .  And 
there  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  precisely  this  difference  which' 
explains  the  mystery  of  the  stupendous  success  which 
the  Russian  writers  have  achieved  with  the  public  and 
the  critics  of  Western  Europe.  Every  one  was  con- 
scious that  the  stagnant  waters  of  European  literature 
had  been  stirred  by  a  fresh  current,  full  of  fresh  colours, 
which  were  the  result,  not  of  putrefaction,  but  of  the 
organic  labour  of  forces  which  were  still  young>  virgin, 
and  incorruptible.  The  barbarians  of  yesterday  were 
speaking  a  new  language,  which  was  to  echo  profoundly 
through  European  literature."  l 

But  while  admitting  all  this,  we  must  not  forget  that 
Russian  realism'  was  born  under  the  influence  of  a  few 
European  authors,  and  in  particular  of  Shakespeare, 
whose  mighty  shadow  hovered  over  the  cradle  of  the 
young  literature.  To-day,  when  all  humanity  has  just 
been  celebrating  the  tercentenary  of  Shakespeare,  Russia 
has  reason  to  be  peculiarly,  grateful  to  him. 

*  S.  Venguerov,  The  Heroic  Character  of  Russian  Literature  (Peters- 
burg, 191 1),  pp.  21,  22. 


EUROPEAN  TENDENCIES  IN   LITERATURE      205 

III 

M.  Lirondelle,  in  his  work  on  Shakespeare  en  Russie, 
touches  on  the  important  problem  of  the  conflict  between 
the  influence  of  Shakespeare  upon  Russian  literature 
and  that  of  Byron.  Speaking  of  the  impress  of  Shake- 
speare upon  Pushkin,  the  father  of  Russian  prose  and 
poetry,  M.  Lirondelle  remarks  that  "  Pushkin  did  not, 
upon  coming  into  contact  with  Shakespeare,  incur  the 
danger  which  Byron  brought  upon  him  by  leading  him 
toward  an  exaggerated  subjectivity."  The  same  idea 
is  expressed  by  many  historians  of  Russian  literature, 
who  assert,  moreover,  that  Shakespeare  delivered 
Pushkin    from   the    peril    of   Byronic    subjectivism. 

I  do  not  share  this  opinion,  for  the  following 
reasons  : — 

In  the  first  place,  I  do  not  understand  why 
Byronism  should  be,  or  should  be  said  to  be, 
more  idangerous  to  Russian  writers  than  "  Ham- 
letism,"  which  has  left  a  deep  imprint  upon  our 
literature.  "  Hamletism "  is  the  scepticism  of  a 
superior  mind  devoid  of  all  moral  energy,  all  power 
of  action.  These  characteristics  were  predominant  in 
the  Russian  "  intellectuals  "  of  certain  periods  of  the 
last  century,  as  I  have  already  stated  in  my  Modern, 
Russia.  As  for  Byronism,  the  lack  of  will  so  typical  of 
"  Hamletism  "  is  unknown  to  it.  During  its  first  diffu- 
sion through  Russia  Byronism  was  accepted  by  our 
"  intellectuals  "  more  especially  as  a  revolutionary  pro- 
test of  the  individual  against  the  old  political  and  social 
forces  which  oppressed  it.  Byron,  to  the  Russians,  was 
not  merely  the  author  of  Don  Juan  and  Childe  Harold  ; 
he  was  also  the  poet  of  the  Greek  insurrection  and  pf 
liberty  in  general.  It  is  of  great  importance  to  realize 
that  of  the  three  principal  currents  of  Western 
romanticism,  that  which  had  the  most  influence  over 
Russian  literature  was  not  the  romanticism  of  Germany, 
with  its  fantastic  ballads,  nor  the  romanticism  of  France, 
with  its  conservatism  and  mysticism,  but  the  romanti- 


206  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

cism  of  England.  And  it  was  not  the  fault  of  thb 
Russian  writers  and  "  intellectuals  "  that  the  external 
conditions  of  their  country  did  not  allow  them  to  realize, 
in  actual  life,  their  Byronic  impulse,  which  was  for  them 
an  impulse  toward  liberty  and  truth.  It  was  not  their 
fault  that  this  impulse,  shattered  by  the  social  and 
political  conditions  of  the  country,  lost  its  energy  and 
degenerated   into  a   passive   "  Hamletism." 

In  the  Russian  life  of  the  nineteenth  century  there 
were  moments  of  the  most  intense  social  and  political 
activity.  At  these  moments  the  young  "intellectuals" 
were  often  extremely  hard  upon  the  "  Byronians."  In 
1877,  when  Dostoievsky  pronounced  a  funeral  address 
over  the  tomb  of  the  poet  Nekrassov,  beloved  by  the 
vanguard  of  Russian  youth,  he  compared  the  dead  poet 
to  Pushkin  and  Lermontov,  whereupon  a  voice  from  the 
crowd  about  the  tomb  cried  out  that  Nekrassov  was 
superior  to  Pushkin  and  Lermontov,  because  they  "  were 
only  Byronians."  Dostoievsky  himself  had  not  much 
love  for  the  Russian  "  Byronians  "  ;  they  were  anti- 
pathetic to  him  as  "  Occidentalists,"  and  men  who  felt 
themselves  detached  from  the  national  soil.  More 
than  once  he  derided  them  ;  more  than  once  he 
was  unjust  to  them.  In  1861  he  wrote  of  them  as 
follows  : — 

"There  were  in  our  country  Byronic  natures.  The 
'  Byronians  '  usually  stood  about  with  folded  arms,  with- 
out even  taking  the  trouble  to  damn  things,  like  the 
head  of  their  school.  They  were  content  to  smile 
bitterly  from  time  to  time,  and  they  derided  their 
English  original  because  on  occasion  he  wept  or  lost 
his  temper,  which  was  entirely  unworthy  of  a  peer. 
Their  quiet  disdain  permitted  them  to  spend  their  time 
junketing  in  restaurants,  growing  fatter  not  daily  only 
but  hourly  ;  and  their  gentle  bitterness  filled  them 
merely  with  an  amiable  hatred  of  property.  Some  there 
were  who,  in  their  disinterestedness — in  respect  of  others 
—dipped  into  the  pockets  of  their  neighbours  and  en- 
riched   themselves    at    their    expense.      Some    became 


EUROPEAN   TENDENCIES  IN   LITERATURE      207 

4  Grecians.'  We  regarded  them  with  admiration.  '  To 
think,'  we  used  to  tell  ourselves,  '  that  what  these  fine 
fellows  do  they  do  on  principle  !  '  " 

But  later  on  Dostoievsky  abandoned  this  point  of 
view,  and  when  his  auditors  by  the  coffin  of  Nekrassov 
sought  in  turn  to  belittle  the  Byronians,  he  took  it 
upon  himself  to  defend  the  latter.  In  this  connection 
Dostoievsky  published  in  his  Diary  of  an  Author  a 
remarkable  passage  descriptive  of  Byronism  : — 

"  In  the  first  place,"  he  says,  "  it  seems  to  me  that 
one  should  not  employ  the  word  '  Byronian  '  as  an 
insult.  Byronism  was  only  a  momentary  phenomenon, 
but  it  was  not  without  importance,  and  it  came  at  the 
right  time.  It  appeared  at  a  period  of  anguish  and  dis- 
illusion. After  a  frantic  enthusiasm  for  a  new  ideal 
born  in  France  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century — 
and  France  was  then  the  foremost  nation  of  Europe- 
humanity  recovered  itself,  and  the  events  which  followed 
were  so  little  like  those  which  had  been  expected,  and 
men  understood  so  clearly  that  they  had  been  tricked, 
that  there  have  been  few  sadder  moments  in  the  history 
of  Western  Europe.  The  old  idols  lay  overthrown,  when 
a  powerful  and  passionate  poet  revealed  himself.  In 
his  songs  echoed  the  anguish  of  man,  and  he  wept  that 
he  had  been  deceived.  His  was  a  muse  as  yet  unknown 
— the  muse  of  vengeance,  malediction,  and  despair.  The 
cry  of  Byron  found  an  echo.  How  could  it  fail  to  do 
so  in  a  heart  as  great  as  Pushkin's?  Any  real  talent 
was  bound,  at  that  time,  to  pass  through  a  Byronic 
period.  In  Russia  many  grievous  problems  were  still 
unsolved,  and  it  was  Pushkin's  glory  that  he  discovered, 
in  the  midst  of  men  who  barely  understood  him,  a  way 
of  escape  from  the  dismal  situation.  This  way  of  escape 
was  to  return  to  the  people." 

As  for  Lermontov,  "he,"  says  Dostoievsky,  '  was 
also  a  Byronian  ;  but  thanks  to  the  power  of  his 
originality  he  was  a  Byronian  of  a  peculiar  kind,  dis- 
dainful and  capricious,  believing  neither  in  his  own 
inspiration  nor  in  his  Byronism."    And  if  death  had  not 


208  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

stopped  him  on  the  way,  "  he  too  would  have  found  his 
way   directly  to  the  national  truth." 

For  Dostoievsky  the  essence  of  Russian  Byronism 
consists  of  the  opposition  between  "  the  type  of  Russian 
tormented  by  Europeanism  "  and  "  the  people."  Dos- 
toievsky saw  the  solution  of  this  conflict  in  the  sub- 
mission of  the  "  Europeanized  intellectual "  to  the 
"  national  truth,"  the  truth  of  the  common  people. 
The  Occidentalists,  on  the  contrary,  saw  it  in  the 
Europeanization  of  the  people  themselves.  But  I  do 
not  wish  to  lay  stress  upon  this  point.  .Wthat  I  do  wish 
to  emphasize  is  that  Dostoievsky  very  correctly  under- 
stood and  defined  the  historic  significance  of  Byronism 
in  Russia.  That  this  Russian  Byronism  achieved  so  great 
an  expansion  was  due  precisely  to  the  fact  that  it  offered 
a  ready-made  formula!  for  a  real  phenomenon.  »We 
cannot,  therefore,  compare  "  the  danger  of  Byronic 
subjectivism  "  with  Shakespearean  objectivism  when 
comparing  the  influence  exerted  by  the  one  and  the 
other  poet  in  Russia.  tWith  us,  to  be  Byronic  meant,  at 
certain  periods,  to  be  faithful  to  the  objectivism  of  the 
life  which  gave  rise  to  the  Byronic  type  within  the  walls 
of  Petersburg  and  Moscow. 

For  this  reason,  perhaps,  we  should  not  be  surprised 
by  the  undoubted  fact  that  "  Byronism,"  like  "  Shake- 
spearism,"  was  a  factor  present  at  the  very,  origin  of 
literary  realism  in  Russia. 


PART   THE    FIFTH 
IDEALS 


14 


CHAPTER     I 

I.  The  first  collision  between  nationalist  ideals  and  Western  influ- 
ences—The first  Russian  zapadnik.  II.  Two  Muscovite  hmgris. 
III.  The  first  Slavophile  in  Russia. 

I 

We  have  seen  under  what  conditions  Europe  penetrated 
the  economic  and  political  life  of  Russia.  Let  us  now 
consider  how  Europe  contributed  to  form  the  Russian 
mentality,    the   national    consciousness   of   Russia. 

To  gain  a  proper  understanding  of  the  subject  we 
must  once  more  ascend  the  stream  of  history  and 
commence  our  examination  at  the  period  when  the  first 
collision  occurred  between  European  ideas  and  the  soul 
of  ancient   Russia — that    is,   the  eighteenth  century. 

At  the  same  time  appears  the  very  curious  and  very 
characteristic  figure  of  the  first  Russian  zapadnik.1 
This  was  Prince  Ivan  Khovrostinin,  the  champion  of 
Occidentalism,  which  was  finding  its  way  into  Russia 
through   Poland. 

During  the  ephemeral  reign  of  Dimitri  the  Impostor, 
Khovrostinin  was  attached  to  his  Court,  in  which  there 
were  many  Poles.  In  this  environment  Khovrostinin 
became  acquainted  with  Latin  civilization  and  Catholi- 
cism. Full  of  the  ideas  derived  from  these  sources, 
he  rebelled  against  Muscovite  manners  and  the  Orthodox 
religion.  After  the  fall  of  Dimitri  I  he  was  accused 
by  the  old  Orthodox  Russians  of  "  Latin  heresy,"  and 
was  deported  to  the  monastery  of  St.  Joseph,  '  there 
to   do    penance."      Shortly   afterwards    he    was   set    at 

•  Zapadnik,    derived    from    zapad    (west),    signifies  a    partisan   of 

Western  ideas,  an  admirer  of  Europe. 

211 


212  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

liberty.  In  the  "  Period  of  Disturbances  "  he  com- 
manded a  regiment  of  the  Muscovite  army  against  the 
Poles  and  their  allies.  He  even  became  a  Muscovite 
dignitary. 

But  the  transformation  was  too  great  ;  he  could 
no  longer  feel  any  sympathy  for  the  old  Russia.  He 
attacked  her  again,  once  more,  for  his  compatriots, 
becoming  a  "heretic";  once  more  to  be  accused  by 
them  of  pride  and  contempt  for  his  country.  In  1623 
the  Tsar  gave  orders  for  his  imprisonment  in  the 
monastery  of  St.  Cyril,  where  he  was  to  be  placed 
"under  the  orders  of  a  good  ancient  (monk)."  The 
instructions  of  the  patriarch  were  that  the  princely 
heretic  "  did  not  pass  a  single  day  without  prayers 
and  canticles."  A  year  later  he  signed  a  deed  of 
abjuration,  denying  his  heresy,  and  was  released,  to 
die  in  1625,  "  reconciled  "  with  Orthodoxy,  and  having 
assumed   the   monk's    robe. 

It  is  highly  probable  that  his  submission  was  only 
apparent.  The  old  faith1  and  the  old  ethics  of  Muscovite 
Russia  were  too  repugnant  to  Khovrostinin  to  admit 
of  his   sincere   conversion. 

Professor  Klutshevsky  describes  him  as  "  an  original 
Russian  freethinker  with  a  Catholic  basis,  who  was 
imbued  with  a  profound  antipathy  for  the  dry  ritualism 
of  the  Byzantine  Church,  and  for  the  whole  life  of 
Russia,  which  was  steeped  in  this  ritualism." 
Klutshevsky  even  compares  Khovrostinin  to  Tchuadaev, 
of  whom  we  shall  speak  later  on.  But  it  must  not  be 
thought  that  Khovrostinin  deserted  Orthodoxy  for 
Catholicism.  In  his  writings  and  the  memoirs  of  his 
contemporaries  we  find  no  evidence  of  his  cbnversion. 
What  he  knew  of  Catholicism  and  the  iWest  in  general 
did  not  lead  him  toward  any  positive  new  faith',  but 
merely  made  him  sensible  of  the  defects  of  his  own. 
He  was  an  atheist.  The  indictment  brought  against 
him  asserted  that  not  only,  did  h|e  not  go  to  church, 
but  he  did  not  allow  his  serfs  to  do  so,  and  in  case 
of  disobedience  he   used  to  beat  thernl  and  otherwise 


IDEALS  213 

punish  them.  His  accusers  also  pretended  that  he  was 
lacking  in  respect  for  the  Tsar,  and  that  he  spoke 
of  him  as   "  the  despot." 

What  particularly  impresses  us  in  Khovrostinin  is 
his  profound  moral  and  intellectual  isolation.  "  Euro- 
peanized  "  mentally,  he  was  above  his  environment. 
If  it  is  true  that  he  assumed  the  gown  of  a  monk  towards 
the  end  of  his  life,  it  was  because  he  himself  was 
conscious  of  his  spiritual  solitude  ;  he  would  willingly 
have  quitted  a  world  with  which  he  could  not  possibly 
live  on  peaceable  terms. 

Such  was  the  first  case  known  to  us  of  rupture 
between  a  "  Russian  European  "  and  his  country. 

II 

Thirty-five  years  after  the  death  of  Prince  Ivan 
Khovrostinin  had  disembarrassed  the  Orthodox  Church 
and  the  government  of  the  Tsar  of  his  hostility,  the 
Muscovite  Chancelleries  had  occasion  to  deal  with 
another  "  refractory  " — the  young  boyarin  Voin  Ordyn- 
Nashtshokin,  who  took  refuge  abroad  (in  1660)  because 
Russian  life   "made  his   gorge  rise." 

Voin  Ordyn-Nashtshokin  had  been  taught  by  his 
father,  a  Muscovite  diplomatist  of  some  repute,  to  hold 
things  European  in  respect,  and  his  education  was  con- 
fided to  Polish  professors  who  succeeded  in  inspiring 
him  with  a  great  affection  for  the  lights  of  Western 
civilization  and  a  great  contempt  for  his  own  back- 
ward country.  Dominated  by  these  feelings,  he 
emigrated,  first  to  Poland  and  then  to  France.  The 
Moscow  Government  was  so  irritated  by  his  departure 
that  it  sought  to  "  put  an  end  to  his  earthly  existence." 
But  this  was  useless  ;  for  after  four  years  abroad  the 
young  boyarin,  overcome  by  a  profound  nostalgia,  re- 
pented, and  was  "pardoned"  by  the  Tsar,  who  at  first 
ordered  him  to  live  on  one  of  his  father's  estates,  and 
afterwards  confined  him  for  some  time  in  the  monastery 
of  St.  Cyril,  where  he  was  obliged  to  be  present  at 
the  daily  offices,   in  order  to  strengthen  his  orthodoxy. 


214  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

Thanks  to  the  solicitations  of  his  father  he  was  able 
to  leave  the  monastery  in  1667,  and  ended  his  days 
as  a  provincial   vo'ievoda. 

The  Russia  of  his  days  "  made  his  gorge  rise." 
Yet  he  returned  of  his  own  free  will.  Why?  M. 
Plekhanov   explains   the   fact  as   follows  : — 

"  Men  like  Prince  Ivan  Khovrostinin  and  Voi'n  Nasht- 
shokin  were  '  nauseated  '  by  Moscow  ;  foreign  lands 
attracted  them.  But  they  found  it  as  difficult  to  adapt 
themselves  to  Western  Europe.  Their  misfortune,  their 
great  and  irreparable  misfortune,  was  that  they  were 
foreigners  either  side  of  the  Muscovite  frontier."1  They 
were  "  the  first  victims  when  Muscovy  turned  toward 
the  West." 

The  third  eminent  zapadnik,  Grigory  Kotoshikhin, 
was  attracted  by  Sweden.  He  was  an  official  of  the 
Prikaz  of  Foreign  Affairs.  He  established  relations 
with  a  merchant  of  Narva,  of  Russian  origin,  but  a 
Swedish  subject.  He  also  came  into  contact  with 
Swedish  diplomatists.  He  carried  his  complaisance 
toward  them  to  the  length  of  giving  them'  certain  secret 
information.  The  following  year,  in  1644,  he  left 
Russia  and  settled  in  Sweden,  where  he  entered  the 
administration.  But  three  years  later  misfortune  over- 
took him  in  his  new  country  ;  he  mortally  wounded 
a   Swede  in   a  quarrel,  and  was  condemned  to  death. 

It  was  not  to  escape  punishment  for  his  act  of 
"  high  treason  "  that  Kotoshikhin  left  Russia  ;  the 
venality  of  the  Muscovite  bureaucracy  was  such  that 
it  was  accustomed  to  such  indiscretions.  Kotoshikhin 
had  other  reasons  for  his  actions  :  the  same  as  had 
previously  impelled  young  Ordyn-Nashtshokin  to  leave 
his  country.  A  man  of  great  intellectual  ability  (vir 
ingenio  incotnparabile,  says  his  Swedish  biographer), 
he  was  incapable  of  descending  to  the  level  of  his 
compatriots . 

In  his  remarkable  work  on  Russia  under  Alexis 
Mikha'ilovitch   he    paints    in   exact   but    pitiless   colours 

1  G.  Plekhanov,  History  of  Social  Ideas  in  Russia,  vol.  i.  p.  276. 


IDEALS  215 

the  fashionable  Muscovite  society  of  the  mid-seven- 
teenth century,  the  administration,  the  juridical  system, 
and  the  manners  of  the  day.  The  impression  produced 
by  his  description,  even  at  a  distance  of  two  and  a  half 
centuries,  is  extremely  painful.  The  population  is 
ignorant,  even  in  its  upper  classes  ;  above  all  the 
women,  who  are  imprisoned  between  the  four  walls 
of  their  homes.  The  Tsarina  cannot  be  allowed  to 
assist  at  the  official  reception  of  the  ambassadors, 
because  she  is  too  unintelligent,  and  does  not  know 
how  to  behave  in  the  presence  of  foreigners.  The 
inhabitants  even  of  the  capital  lack  the  most  elementary 
security  ;  the  brigands  are  the  masters  in  the  streets 
of  Moscow.  The  public  administrations  are  composed 
of  individuals  chosen  not  for  their  intelligence,  but  on 
account  of  their  birth;  and  the  boyars  who  sit  in 
the  Duma  are  dense  and  stupid  ;  they  "  rest  their 
beards  "  on  the  table,  understanding  nothing. 

All  this,  in  Kotoshikhin's  ppinion,  because  Russia 
was  isolated  from  Europe. 

"  They  (the  Russians)  do  not  send  their  sons  to  be 
educated  abroad,  because  they  fear  that,  having  become 
acquainted  with  the  religion,  the  manners,  and  the 
excellent  liberty  of  other  countries,  they  would  proceed 
to  abandon  their  own  religion  and  embrace  another, 
without  giving  a  thought  to  returning  to  their  homes  and 
their   parents." 

Ill 

The  Slavophiles  bitterly  reproached  Kotoshikhin  for 
his  attacks  upon  the  old  Russia.  They  often  contrasted 
him  with  another  moralist  of  the  same  period — Jury 
Krijanitsh. 

Of  Serb  origin,  born  in  Croatia  in  1617,  a  pupil 
in  the  Catholic  seminary  of  Vienna,  he  entered  Russia 
in  1646,  and  lived  there  for  five  years.  In  1660  he 
returned  to  Russia,  but  in  1661  he  was  deported  to 
Tobolsk  in  Siberia,  where  he  lived  for  fifteen  years. 
Between  1676  and  1680  he  was  in  Poland.  After  1680 
we  lose  sight  of  him. 


216  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

Krijanitsh",  according  to  his  own  statement,  was  drawn 
to  Russia  by  his  love  of  the  Slavs.  He  searched 
among  the  Slavs  for  a  people  which  had  not  as  yet 
been  denationalized  by  foreign  influence.  He  regarded 
the  Slavs  of  Pomerania,  Silesia,  Bohemia,  and  Moravia 
as  finally  Germanized.  The  Slavs  of  the  Balkans, 
according  to  him,  "  had  long  ago  lost  not  only  their 
national  formations,  but  their  power,  their  language, 
and  their  understanding."  "  Their  States  cannot  be 
re-established  at  present,  in  these  difficult  times  ;  one 
can  only  open  their  mind's  eye  by  means  of  books, 
so  that  they  may  learn  for  themselves  to  understand 
their  dignity,  and  to  dream  of  their  independence." 
Krijanitsh  had  more  hope  of  the  Poles,  but  he  believed 
they  would  need  help  from  Russia,  whose  assistance 
and  protection  were  still  more  necessary,  to  the  other 
Slavs . 

But  in  order  to  protect  and  guide  the  Slav  world, 
Russia,  said  Krijanitsh,  ought  to  emancipate  herself 
from  her  "  xenomania,"  that  is,  from  her  exaggerated 
love  of  foreign  things  and  persons.  Krijanitsh  con- 
sidered that  foreigners  weakened  the  two  principal  bases 
of  Russia's  power  :  her  material  wealth  and  her  military 
forces.  Foreign  merchants  exploited  the  population, 
buying  its  products  at  a  low  price  and  selling  their 
own  goods  to  it  at  a  high  price  ;  they  exported  grain, 
which  the  country  needed  for  the  increase  of  its  popula- 
tion, and  imported  articles  which  helped  to  corrupt 
the  Russians  and  to  introduce  foreign  tastes  among 
them.  As  for  the  military  force  of  Russia,  the  par- 
ticipation of  foreigners  in  its  transformation  was  an 
evil,  because  the  organization  established  by  them  was 
adapted  to  wars  upon  the  (Western  frontier,  but  not 
to  the  struggle  against  the  nomads  of  the  South,  who 
were  particularly  dangerous.  The  appointment  of 
foreigners  as  officers  resulted  in  the  rejection  of 
Russians,  and  the  soldiers,  who  were  given  orders  in 
a  foreign  language,  had  no  confidence  in  their  officers, 
and    were    losing    confidence    in    themselves. 


IDEALS  217 

Krijanitsh  reached  a  very  simple  conclusion.  The 
foreigners  must  be  expelled  ;  European  merchants  were 
to  be  tolerated  only  in  a  few  mercantile  towns  near 
the  frontier  ;  as  for  the  foreign  "  colonels/'  they  were 
to  be  dismissed  and  sent  home  to  their  own  countries 
as  soon  as  they  had  transferred  their  knowledge  to  the 
Russians — which    they   had   already   accomplished. 

However,  Krijanitsh  was  not  a  reactionary  nationalist 
after  the  pattern  of  those  which  Russia  knew  in  the  nine- 
teenth century.  He  recommended  the  Russian  people 
to  follow  "  a  middle  path,"  equally  removed  from  the 
two  extremes;  one  of  which,  according  to  Krijanitsh, 
was  represented  by  the  Byzantine  Greeks  and  the  other 
by  the  Europeans.  He  compared  the  action  of  these 
two  factors,  and  described  it  in  a  very  interesting 
manner  : — 

'  There  are,"  he  writes,  "  two  peoples  which  lead 
Russia  into  temptation  by  offering  baits  of  a  contrary 
nature.  .  .  .  They  are  the  Niemtzy  l  and  the  Greeks. 
Despite  all  their  differences,  these  two  peoples  are  in 
perfect  agreement  upon  one  point:  that  is,  as  to  the 
fundamental  aim  of  the  temptations  which  they  offer, 
and  this  agreement  is  such  that  one  might  well  believe 
in   a  conspiracy  against  us. 

"  i .  The  Niemtzy  recommend  us  to  accept  all  sorts 
of  novelties.  They  want  us  to  abandon  all  our  old  and 
praiseworthy  institutions,  and  to  adopt  their  customs 
and  their  depraved  laws.  The  Greeks,  on  the  other 
hand,  condemn  all  novelties,  without  exception.  .  ..  . 
They  tell  us  again  and  again  that  every  new  thing  is  an 
evil  thing.  But  reason  tells  us  that  nothing  can  be  good 
or  bad  simply  because  it  is  new.  Every  good  thing  and 
every  evil  thing  has  begun  by  being  a  new  thing.  .  .  . 
We  cannot  accept  novelties  without  discussion,  frivo- 
lously, fpr  in  that  case  we  might  be  mistaken.  But 
we  must  not  refuse  that  which  is  good  because  of  its 
newness,  for  in  this  case  also  we  might  be  in  error.    .   .    . 

1  The  name  of  Niemtzy  was  then  applied  to  Europeans  in  general. 
To-day  it  is  reserved  for  the  Germans. 


218  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

"  2.  The  Greeks  taught  us  long"  ago  the  Orthodox 
religion.  The  Niemtzy  preach  heresies  which  are  impure 
and  have  a  disastrous  effect  on  the  soul.  Reason 
counsels  us  in  this  connection  to  be  very  grateful  to 
the  Greeks,  to  avoid  the  Niemtzy,  and  to  detest  them  as 
though   they  were  devils  or  dragons. 

"  3.  The  Niemtzy  try  to  induce  us  to  go  to  school 
with  them.  .  .  .  They  advise  us  to  make  the  free 
sciences — that  is,  the  philosophical  sciences — a  common 
possession,  accessible  to  every  moujik.  The  Greeks, 
on  the  contrary,  condemn  all  knowledge  and  all  the 
sciences,  and  recommend  us  to  remain  ignorant.  But 
reason  says  :  Avoid  diabolical  enchantments  like  the 
Devil  himself,  but  believe  that  ignorance  does  not  lead 
to   good. 

"4.  The  Niemtzy  set  the  preaching  or  the  reading  of 
the  Gospel  above  everything  ;  they  hope  to  achieve 
salvation  thereby,  without  any  help  of  penitence  or  good 
works.  Moreover,  they  provoke  us  to  argument.  As 
for  the  Greeks,  they  have  entirely  suppressed  and  con- 
demn the  preaching  of  the  Word  of  God.  And  they 
have  condemned  and  prohibited  disputes  and  assem- 
blies. But  reason  counsels  us  (1)  to  be  zealous  in  the 
matter  of  penitence  and  good  works  ;  (2)  not  to  despise 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  But  the  first-comer  must 
not  be  permitted  to  preach.  .  .  .  Only  the  bishop  or 
one  of  the  most  ancient  monks  may  do  so.  As  for 
mere  priests— and  even  this  is  not  fitting  for  all — it  is 
enough  for  them  to  read  sermons  from  books.  Now, 
in  Germany  and  Poland  any  drunken  priest  may  preach 
the  word  of  God. 

"  5.  The  Niemtzy  advise  us  to  abandon  ourselves  to; 
all  the  pleasures  of  the  body  and  teach  us  to  despise  the 
life  of  the  monks,  vigils,  and  all  mortifications  of  the 
flesh.  The  Greeks  require  that  we  shall  observe  the  true 
and  praiseworthy  Christian  temperance,  but  besides  this 
they  propagate  a  special  kind  of  false  piety  and  Phari- 
saical superstition.  They  seek  to  wash  away  spiritual 
taints  by  means  of  corporeal  ablutions,  and  they  think; 


IDEALS  219 

to  cleanse  the  impurity  of  the  body  by  the  prayers  Of 
priests,  etc.  But  reason  says:  One  must  by  no  means 
suffer  corporeal  debauchment  and  despise  the  acts  of 
penitence  nor  the  mortification  of  the  flesh.  As  for 
pious  practices  which  are  new  and  suspect  and  unknown 
to  our  fathers,  they  should  be  carefully  exainined 
beforehand. 

"6.  In  political  matters  the  Greeks  advise  us  to  act 
in  all  things  according  to  the  example  of  the  Turkish 
Court.  Themselves  devoid  of  political  knowledge  and 
experience,  they  can  only  tell  us  of  what  they  have  seen  at 
the  Porte.  As  for  the  Nlemtzy,  they  condemn  all  the 
customs,  laws,  and  institutions  of  the  Turks.  Anything 
that  bears  the  name  of  Turkish  is,  in  their  country,  by 
that  sole  fact,  reputed  as  barbarous,  inhuman,  and 
bestial.  But  reason  says  that  even  in  Turkey  there  are 
some  institutions  which  are  excellent  and  worthy  of 
imitation,   though  not,  of  course,  all. 

"7.  The  Nlemtzy,  maintaining  that  no  one  should 
be  punished  because  of  his  religion,  take  their  stand 
upon  the  Gospel,  which  says :  '  Judge  not,  that  ye  be 
not  judged.'  The  Greeks  avail  themselves  of  another 
text :  '  Let  him  that  shall  preach  unto  you  that  which 
you  have  not  heard  be  excommunicated,'  and  they 
deduce  from  this  passage  and  others  like  it  that 
we  must  set  them  apart  and  believe  them  without  dis- 
cussion. But  if  reason  counsels  us  to  reject  without  re- 
examination the  German  heresies,  and  all  others  already 
condemned,  when  a  fresh  controversy  arises  we  must 
first  of  all  become  acquainted  with  it  and  properly 
examine  it,  and  not  condemn  it  without  having  informed 
ourselves   of  its  nature. 

"  8.  The  Greeks  flatter  us  and  seek  to  gain  our 
favour  by  means  of  fables,  exaggerating  the  antiquity 
of  the  Russian  State  ;  and  in  reality  they  disparage  and 
insult  it.  They  have  called  Moscow  the  third  Rome 
and  have  imagined  the  ridiculous  idea  that  the  Russian 
State  should  be  a  Roman  State,  having  a  right  to  the 
insignia   of  the  Empire.     The  Nlemtzy  calumniate  us 


220  .  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

and  seek  by.  all  means  to  prove  that  the  Russian  State 
is  only  a  simple  principality,  and  that  the  Russian: 
sovereigns  are  merely  High  Princes.  Both  Greeks  and 
Niemtzy  refuse  to  this  State  the  name  and  rank  of  king- 
dom ;  both  agree  in  this  imposture  that  the  Roman 
State  could  not  be  a  mere  kingdom,  but  something' 
superior,  and  that  Russia  could  not  be  its  equal  save 
by  an  investiture  which  would  be  conferred  upon  it  by 
the  Roman  State.  But  reason  says  that  God  alone  can 
create  sovereigns,  and  not  the  Roman  Emperor.  .  .  . 
The  Russian  State  is  as  great  and  as  glorious  as  the 
Roman  State,  has  never  been  subjected  to  the  latter,  and 
is  equal  to  it  in  power. 

"9.  By  all  the  foregoing  we  see  plainly  the  danger 
and  diversity  of  the  temptations  to  which  the  Niemtzy 
and  the  Greeks  expose  us,  while  giving  us,  moreover, 
counsels  which  are  diametrically  opposed.  In  fact,  the 
former  want  to  contaminate  us  with  their  novelties, 
while  the  latter  condemn  all  novelties  as  a  whole,  and 
foist  their  aberrations  upon  us  under  cover  of  a  false 
antiquity.  The  former  sow  heresies  ;  the  latter, 
although  they  taught  us  the  true  religion,  have  mingled 
schism  with  it.  The  former  offer  us  a  mixture  of  the 
true  and  the  diabolical  sciences  ;  the  latter  glorify 
ignorance  and  regard  all  the  sciences  as  heresies.  The 
former  cherish  the  vain  hope  of  saving  themselves  by 
the  word  alone  ;  the  others  despise  the  spoken  word! 
and  prefer  complete  speechlessness.  The  former,  the 
partisans  of  every  licence,  draw  us  toward  the  broad 
road  of  destruction  ;  the  others  resort  to  pharisaicad 
superstition  and  exaggerated  devoutness,  marking  out 
for  us  a  path  even  narrower  than  the  true  and  difficult 
path  of  salvation.  The  former  regard  all  institutions 
of  the  Turkish  State  as  barbarous,  tyrannical,  and  in- 
human ;  the  latter  profess  that  everything  about  the 
Turkish  State  is  good  and  praiseworthy.  The  former 
hold  that  we  should  judge  no  one  ;  the  latter  assert 
that  we  should  condemn  without  hearing  the  defence. 
The  former  refuse  to  this  State  the  honours  which  are 


IDEALS  221 

its  due.;  the  latter  confer  upon  it  nonours  which  are 
fictitious,  vain,  absurd,  and  impossible.  Thus,  in  dis- 
agreement upon  almost  every  point,  they  are  in  perfect 
agreement  to  regard  our  people  with  equal  hatred,  to 
despise  and  belittle  it  and  load  it  with  the  most  dreadful 
calumnies   and  accusations." 

As  we  see,  Krijanitsh,  often  regarded  as  the  father  of 
the  Slavophile  movement  in  Russia,  was  pretty  severe 
upon  "  Byzantism,"  which  is  so  highly  esteemed  by  the 
Slavophiles.1  It  is  especially  significant  that  he  opposes 
the  theory,  introduced  into  Russia  in  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury by  the  Balkan  Slavs,  according  to  which  Moscow 
should  be  "  the  third  Rome,"  the  heiress  of  the  first  two 
Romes  (Rome  and  Byzantium).  This  theory  had  a 
great  vogue  in  the  Muscovite  Court  under  Ivan  III,  who 
had  married  Sophia  Palseologus,  niece  of  the  Byzantine 
Emperor.  It  was  essentially  a  conservative  theory  ; 
lest  she  share  the  fate  of  the  first  and  the  second  Rome, 
Russia  must  change  neither  her  habits  nor  her  customs 
nor  her  institutions,  for  "  the  country,  which  changes 
these  does  not  endure  much  longer."  Krijanitsh  held 
that  Russia  should  turn  aside  from  the  conservative 
traditions  of  Byzantium  as  well  as  from  the  civilization 
of  iWestern  Europe  and  should  follow  her  own  path. 

He  considered  that  Russia  enjoyed  many  advantages 
over  the  West.  The  Russians,  he  says,  lead  a  simpler 
life  than  the  Europeans.  In  Russia  the  distance 
between  the  rich  and  the  poor  is  not  so  great  as  in 
Europe,  where  on  the  one  hand  you  find  a  "  Sar- 
danapalus  "  lapped  in  luxury,  and  on  the  other  a' 
starving  artisan  who  possesses  nothing.  "  In  Russia, 
thanks  to  God,  everybody,  the  poorest  as  .well  as  the 
richest,  eats  rye  bread,  fish,  and  meat,"  and  lives  in  a 
well-warmed  house,  while  in  the  W.est  the  indigent  suffer 
from  the  cold  because  "  wood  is  sold  for  its  weight  in 

1  I  refer  the  reader  to  the  opinion  of  M.  Bulgakov,  one  of  the 
leaders  of  the  modern  Slavophiles,  cited  at  the  beginning  of  the 
present  volume. 


222  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

gold."     "  Thus  the  life  of  the  peasants  and  artisans  is 
better  in  Russia  than  in  many  countries." 

In  this  connection  a  modern  writer  (G.  Plekhanoiv) 
says  that  Krijanitsh  paints  the  condition  of  the  Great 
Russian  people  in  too  rosy  a  hue.  "  But  there  was  truth 
in  his  picture.  In  countries  in  which  a  natural  economy 
prevails,  articles  of  prime  necessity,  such  as  bread  and 
meat,  are  much  more  accessible  to  the  people  than  in 
countries  in  which  commercial  exchanges  are  largely 
developed.  We  know  to-day  that  the  division  of  social 
labour  in  Western  Europe  has  resulted  in  the  im- 
poverishment of  the  laborious  masses.  There  is  thus 
undeniable  truth  in  this  antithesis  between  Muscovite 
Russia  and  the  West.  Krijanitsh  is  the  first  writer  to 
make  it.  .  .  .  This  antithesis  provided  a  sufficient  and 
logical  basis  for  the  doubt :  Is  it  not  a  sin  against  the 
people  to  favour  the  productive  forces  of  the  country? 
The  question  did  not  occur  to  Krijanitsh  himself.  But 
the  Russian  "  intellectuals  "  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
to  whom  the  interests  of  the  labouring  masses  were  very 
dear,  must  have  spent  perhaps  the  greater  portion  of 
their  energies  in  trying  to  solve  this  "  accursed  "  ques- 
tion. In  this  respect  the  Serbo-Russian  philosopher  of 
the  seventeenth  century  was  the  precursor  of  our 
contemporary    narodniki. 

Krijanitsh  recognized  that  the  character  and  the 
life  of  the  Russians  presented  many  defects.  For 
example,  he  very  severely  condemns  "  the  hideous 
drunkenness  "  prevalent  in  Russia,  the  idleness  and 
prodigality,  the  lack  of  education,  etc.  He  admitted 
that  Europeans  were  more  civilized  than  the  Russians, 
and  he  realized  that  a  cultivated  and  educated  people 
always  exploits  a  more  ignorant  people.  He  even 
admitted  the  necessity  of  education  and  civilization, 
but  he  thought  that  the  time  had  gone  by  for  the 
Russians  to  "  sit  on  the  benches  of  the  European 
school,"  and  that  they  could  now  "  expel  the  Niemtzy  " 
and  live  without  their  aid.  He  demanded  "  the  closing 
of  the  Russian  frontiers."    Yet,  at  the  same  time,  when 


IDEALS  223 

it  came  to  giving  the  Russians  practical  advice,  he  again 
took  Europe  as  his  example,  and  looked  to  Europe  for 
useful  lessons.  Showing  the  necessity  of  developing 
the  economic  forces  of  Russia,  he  proposed  England  and 
the  Netherlands  as  examples.  To  the  "  bad  legislation  " 
of  Russia  he  opposed  that  of  France,  "  which  was 
good." 

Krijanitsh  was  the  determined  opponent  of  Byzantine 
and  Oriental  despotism.  He  was  in  favour  of  an  en- 
lightened monarchy,  based  upon  the  privileged  classes, 
to  which  it  should  grant  proper  liberties.  And  again 
he  referred  to  the  experience  of  Europe:  M  Among  the 
French  and  the  Spaniards  the  great  enjoy  certain  liber- 
ties which  they  owe  to  their  birth,  and  thanks  to  which 
the  kings  are  not  exposed  to  any  outrage  from  the 
people  nor  from  the  army.  Among  the  Turks,  on  the 
other  hand,  where  there  are  no  liberties  proper  to  the 
nobility,  the  sovereigns  are  exposed  to.  the  stupidity  and 
insolence  of  mere   infantrymen." 

In  the  existence  of  privileges  and  liberties  for  the 
upper  classes  Krijanitsh  saw  a  means  of  "  changing 
a  rigorous  government  or  a  tyranny  into  a  moderate 
government."  M.  Milukov  compares  this  system  with 
that  of  the  "  intermediary  powers  "  of  Montesquieu, 
which  was  expounded  a  century  later. 

This  brief  glimpse  of  the  ideas  of  Krijanitsh  shows 
that  the  first  Russian  "  Slavophile  "  was  by  no  means 
radically  inimical  to  Europe,  and  that  he  sought  lessons 
from  the  Western  civilizations.  If  we  are  tempted  to 
regard  him  as  the  first  representative  of  nationalism  in 
Russia,  we  must  not  forget  that  he  was  not  of  Russian 
origin,  that  he  came  from  the  West,  and  that  he  brought 
all  these  ideas  from  the  West. 

We  shall  see  later  on  that  the  Slavophiles  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  like  Krijanitsh,  borrowed  from  the 
thought  of  Europe. 


CHAPTER    II 

I  The  impossibility  of  a  compromise  between  Muscovite  Russia  and 
European  tendencies.  II.  The  Russian  Voltaireans — The  "his- 
torical superfluities" — The  opinions  of  Klutshevsky  and  Herzen 
on  the  Russian  Voltaireans.     III.  Radishtshev  and  Novikov. 

I 

The  middle  way  recommended  by  Krijanitsh  was  not 
followed,  and  Russia  passed  from  one  extreme  to  the  other. 

In  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  Euro- 
peans were  within  an  ace  of  being  expelled  from  Russia, 
as  Krijanitsh  recommended.  The  populace,  excited  by 
the  priests  and  other  representatives  of  Byzantine  con- 
servatism, subjected  them,  in  Moscow,  to  a  regular 
pogrom.  At  the  instance  of  the  clergy  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Tsar  Mikhail  Fedorovitch  gave  the  order  to 
demolish  the  three  Lutheran  churches  which,  then  existed 
in  Moscow,  prohibited  the  wearing  of  European  costume 
by,  Russians,  confined  foreigners  to  a  residential  zone 
in  Moscow,  forbade  them  to  employ  Russian  servants, 
and  expelled  the  English  merchants  from  all1  the  towns 
excepting  Archangel. 

But,  as  a  Russian  historian  has  remarked,  "  to  expel 
the  foreigners  from  Moscow,  while  it  was  impossible  to 
do  without  them,  was  to  make  it  compulsory  to  go  to 
them,  to  their  own  countries,  there  to.  seek  knowledge." 

Under  Alexei  Mikha'ilovitch  the  nationalist  insurgency 
came  to  an  end.  But  this  sovereign  strove  to  maintain 
a  certain  equilibrium  between  the  indigenous  reaction 
and  European  progress.  Russian  historians  represent 
him  with  one  foot  beyond  the  Wjestern  frontier  and  one 
planted  on  his  native  soil,  "  congealed  in  an  attitude  of 
indecision."- 


IDEALS  225 

This  state  of  affairs  could  not  last  long,  for  no  co- 
existence, however  brief,  was  possible  to  Byzantine  con- 
servatism and  "  Europeanization."  The  history  of  the 
schism  proves  in  a  most  striking  fashion  that  the 
partisans  of  the  old  Russia  rejected  even  the  most 
necessary  "novelties."  The  order  given  by  the 
Patriarch  Nikon,  that  the  text  of  the  book  of  ritual 
employed  by  the  popes  should  be  revised  with  refer- 
ence to  the  originals,  because  the  errors  which  it 
contained  were  frequently  of  great  importance  and  ex- 
tremely gross,  was  denounced  as  a  "  heresy  "  by  the 
conservatives,  who  opposed  it  with  all  their  might. 
From  this  arose  the  great  schism  of  the  Orthodox 
Church.  To  disturb  nothing,  to  preserve  everything 
as  it  had  been  for  centuries  :  such  was  the  watchword 
of  militant  nationalism.  Its  excesses  explain  those  of 
the  spirit  of  innovation  which  appeared  in  the  reign  of 
Peter  I.  The  two  conceptions  were  too  violently 
opposed  for  any  possibility  of  reconciliation.  But  the 
material  force  being  on  the  side  of  authority,  the  oppo- 
sition could  do  nothing  but  submit,  or  leave  a  country 
invaded   by   European    "heresies"   and   "novelties." 

In  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  parti- 
sans of  European  influence  had  to  seek  refuge  in  the 
West  from  the  persecutions  of  Byzantine  conservatism. 
In  the  second  half  of  the  same  century  and  the  begin- 
ning of  the  next  it  was  for  the  conservatives  to  fall  under 
the  blows  of  the  "  innovators,"  or,  in  their  flight  from 
Western  "  civilization,"  to  escape  into  the  immense 
forests  of  the  Ural  and  the  North,  or  the  vast  steppes 
of  the   South. 

But  it  must  be  admitted  that  in  the  reign  of  Peter  I 
it  was  no  battle  of  ideas  which  broke  out  between  the 
old  Russia  and  the  new.  The  "  Europeanization  " 
undertaken  by  Peter  I  was  material,  and  brutal  in  its 
practical  materialism.  Its  immediate  aim  was,  so  to 
speak,  the  transformation  of  the  external  aspect  of 
men  and  things,  beginning  with  the  long  beards  of  the 
boyars  and  ending  with  the  names  of  State  institutions, 

15 


226  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

and  it  coincided  with  the  burden  of  conscriptiSh  and 
taxation.  For  this  reason  it  is  very  difficult  t0  say 
whether  the  conservatives  protested  and  fled  en  masse 
for  spiritual  reasons  (as  did  Ordyn-Nashtshokin)  or  for 
reasons  of  temporal  interest. 

In  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  under 
Catherine  II,  the  conflict  between  Russia  and  Europe 
was  far  more  abstract,  and  was  extremely  interesting 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  history  of  ideological 
evolution .  r 

II 

While  in  the  seventeenth  century  a  Europeanized 
Russian  was  regarded  by  his  contemporaries  as  a 
heretic,  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  he  was 
known  as  a  voltairianetz  (Voltairean)  or  a  farmazon 
(Freemason).  The  first  term  is  especially  characteristic, 
as  it  proves  how  great  was  the  influence  in  Russia'  of 
French  philosophy  in  general  and  of  Voltaire's  in 
particular. 

But  the  Russian  voltairianetz  of  the  time  of  Catherine 
II  was  not  merely  an  admirer  of  Voltaire,  as  many  were 
in  all  European  countries  ;  the  Russian  voltairianetz 
was  a  veritable  social  and  historical  type,  and  no  student 
of  the  history  of  Russian  culture  can  omit  him1  from  the 
scope  of  his   inquiry. 

Many  of  our  historians  have  dealt  with  the  Russian 
voltairianstvo .  But  hitherto  the  best  description  of  it — 
I  would  even  say  the  one  unique  and  truly  classical 
description — is  that  of  the  poet-historian  Klutshevsky. 
I  profit  by  this  description  all  the  more  readily  as  it 
is  only  to  be  found  in  the  lithographed  and  extremely 
rare  examples  of  the  lectures  which  Klutshevsky 
delivered   at   the   University   of  Moscow. 

Under  Yelisaveta,  the  "  merry  Tsarina,"  the  impetus 
which  came  from  Europe  was  rather  of  an  aesthetic 
quality :  Russia  took  from  Europe  what  was  capable  of 
embellishing  life,  in  the  purely  material1  sense  of  the 
word.    Under  Catherine  II  the  desire  to  adorn  the  mind 


IDEALS  227 

was  added  to  the  desire  to  embellish  the  material  aspect 
of  life.  In  the  reign  of  Yelisaveta  society  was  fully 
prepared  for  the  enjoyment  of  intellectual  pleasures  ; 
it  had  learned  French  and  acquired  a  taste  for  belles- 
lettres.  For  the  society  of  the  day  France  had  become 
the  school  of  worldly  elegance  just  at  the  moment  when 
French  literature  was  proclaiming  new  ideas  in  books 
which  found  an  echo  on  every  hand.  The  Russians, 
who  were  entirely  ready  to  receive  these  new  ideas, 
welcomed  them  with  an  avidity  which  was  favoured  by 
the  Court.  Even  in  Yelisaveta's  reign  the  Court  had 
established  relations  with  the  great  French  writers. 
Voltaire  became  an  honorary  member  of  the  Russian 
Academy  of  Sciences,  and  was  commissioned  to  write 
a  history  of  Peter  the  Great.  Catherine,  in  her  youth, 
had  been  fascinated  by  the  masterpieces  of  French 
literature  ;  once  on  the  throne,  she  hastened  to  enter 
directly  into  communication  with  their  authors.  Carried 
away  to  some  extent  by  the  general  tendency,  Catherine 
was  also  obedient  to  diplomatic  considerations :  she 
sought  to  win  the  good  graces  of  these  masters  of 
opinion,  because  she  attached  a  great  importance  to  the 
approval  of  Paris.  Her  correspondence  with  Voltaire  is 
a  proof  of  this.  She  wished  to  entrust  d'Alembert  with 
the  education  of  the  Crown  Prince  Paul,  the  heir  to  the 
Russian  throne,  and  reproached  him  keenly  and  at 
length  for  his  refusal.  She  extended  her  favours  to 
Diderot :  having  learned  that  the  editor  of  the  Encyclo- 
pedia was  in  want  of  money,  she  bought  his  library 
for  £600  and  entrusted  the  care  of  it  to  d'Alembert, 
paying  him  a  salary  of  £40  a  year. 

Fashionable  Russian  society  shared  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  Empress.  The  Russian  seigneurs  engaged 
French  tutors  for  their  children.  The  republican  La 
Harpe  educated  Catherine's  grandson,  the  future 
Alexander  I.  Romme,  the  future  Montagnard,  did  the 
same  for  Count  Stroganov,  the  friend  of  Alexander. 
The  sons  of  Count  Soltykov  were  confided  to  the  brother 
of  Marat. 


228  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

The  lesser  nobility  could  not  afford  the  luxury  of  such 
tutors,  and  contented  itself  with  books.  French  works 
circulated  freely  and  extensively  throughout  the  Empire, 
finding  their  way  to  the  remotest  corners  of  the  pro- 
vinces. To-day  we  can  hardly  realize  the  immense 
number  of  French  volumes  which  were  translated  into 
Russian  and  offered  for  sale  in  the  reign  of 
Catherine  II.  A  Ukrainian  dvorianin,  Vinsky,  an 
officer  of  the  Guard,  mentions  in  his  memoirs  some 
very  interesting  details  bearing  on  this  point.  During 
his  residence  in  Petersburg  he  found  all  the  best  French 
authors  in  the  houses  of  his  friends,  whether  military 
or  civilian.  Shortly  afterwards  he  was  deported  to 
Orenburg,  for  some  such  prank  as  was  often  committed 
in  the  Guard.  In  that  remote  town  he  began,  as  a 
distraction,  the  translation  of  French  authors,  his 
versions  being  circulated  in  manuscript.  A  few  years 
later  he  had  the  pleasure  of  receiving  several  of  his 
own  manuscripts  from  Siberia,  sent  him  as  a  curious 
"  novelty."  On  the  banks  of  the  Volga,  at  Simbirsk,  at 
Kazan,  and  elsewhere,  French  literature  was  known  and 
appreciated. 

Under  its  influence  the  relations  between  Russian 
society  and  Europe  were  modified.  In  the  reign  of 
Peter  I  the  nobles  used  to  go  abroad  to  study  the  art 
of  war  or  navigation.  Then  they  did  so  to  acquire 
le  bon  ton.  In  the  reign  of  Catherine  they  went  to 
France  to  salute  the  philosophers.  Russians  appeared 
from  time  to  time  among  the  guests  of  Voltaire  at 
Ferney,  and  Catherine  wrote  to  him  that  many  of  her 
officers  were  delighted  with  their  visits  to  him.  French- 
men who  visited  Petersburg  at  the  end  of  Catherine's 
reign  were  equally  delighted  with  the  intellectual  youth 
which  they  met  there,  some  going  so  far  as  to  declare  it 
the  most  cultivated  and  "  most  philosophical  "  in  Europe. 

The  reign  of  French  literature  and  philosophy  was 
the  last  phase  of  intellectual  and  moral  development 
traversed  by  Russian  society  after  the  death  of  Peter  I . 
The   fashionable  gentleman,   the  artilleryman  or  naval 


IDEALS  229 

officer  of  the  time  of  Peter,  a  dandy  under  Yelisaveta, 
became,  under  Catherine,  a  "  man  of  letters,"  a  free- 
thinker, and  a  freemason  or  Voltairean. 

What  has  remained  in  Russia  of  this  Western 
impress?  To  understand  this  we  must  recall  the 
character  of  French  Encyclopaedism.  It  was  the  first 
revolt  against  the  order  of  things  based  upon  Catholic 
and  feudal  tradition,  to  which  it  opposed  a  host  of 
logical  conceptions  and  systems.  This  was  the 
philosophy  which  made  the  conquest  of  enlightened 
minds  in  Russia,  where  feudality,  properly  so  called, 
and  Catholicism  did  not  exist.  In  France  the  Encyclo- 
paedic theories  expressed  the  very  real  and  concrete 
pretensions  of  the  Third  Estate,  which  aspired  to  apply 
them.  The  Russian  sectaries,  on  the  other  hand,  did 
not  regard  these  theories  as  of  any  practical  import- 
ance ;  they  regarded  them  only  as  dogmas,  intended  to 
remain  in  the  domain  of  the  absolute,  not  to  control 
the  relations  between  man  and  man  ;  as  noble  ideals, 
expressed  in  fine  phrases,  which  gave  one  an  air  of 
distinction,  which  would  help  a  man  to  emerge  from 
the  common  ruck,  but  which  must  by  no  means  be 
regarded  as  rules  of  actual  conduct.  Their  sensibility 
and  philanthropy  were  only  verbal  ;  under  this  outer 
garment  they  kept  intact  their  egoism,  their  hardness, 
and  their  old  moral  habits. 

Klutshevsky  depicts  for  us  a  few  types  of  these 
Russian  "  Encyclopaedists."  A  wealthy  noble  in  the 
Government  of  Penza,  Nikita  Strouisky,  conceived  a 
passion  for  belles-lettres,  and  himself  wrote  verses, 
which  he  willingly  read  to  his  friends,  allowing  him- 
self to  be  so  far  carried  away  by  the  heat  of  declama- 
tion that  he  would  sometimes  pinch  his  auditors  till 
the  blood  came.  This  gentleman  was  greatly  interested 
also  in ,  jurisdiction,  and  instituted  on  his  estates  a 
tribunal  in  accordance  with  the  latest  teachings  of 
European  science,  only  retaining  the  old  Russian  method 
of  torture.  The  celebrated  Princess  Dashkov  was  the 
most  enlightened  of  all  her  contemporaries  ;    she  was 


230  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

even  appointed  President  of  the  Russian  Academy  of 
Sciences.  At  the  age  of  fifteen  or  sixteen  she  con- 
ceived such  a  passion  for  French  that  she  read  the 
works  of  Beyle,  Voltaire,  and  Rousseau  until  she  con- 
tracted a  nervous  malady  thereby.  At  the  end  of  her 
brilliant  career  she  lived  in  Moscow,  in  isolation,  in 
which  her  true  nature  revealed  itself.  She  received 
no  one,  was  completely  indifferent  to  the  fate  of  her 
own  children,  beat  her  servants,  and  concentrated  all 
her  feelings  and  all  her  activities  upon  some  rats  which 
she  had  tamed.  The  death  of  her  son  caused  her  no 
grief  ;  but  if  any  ill  befell  one  of  her  rats  she  was 
stricken  to  the  depths  of  her  soul.  To  begin  with 
Voltaire  and  to  end  with  a  tame  rat — only  the  subjects 
of  Catherine  were  capable  of  such  eccentricities. 

What  was  really  the  condition  of  the  nobility  to  which 
all  these  "  Voltaireans  "  belonged?  It  lived  by  political 
injustice  and  in  a  state  of  social  inaction.  From  the 
hands  of  a  dlatshok  «  (precentor)  the  Russian  noble 
passed  into  those  of  a  French  tutor  ;  he  completed 
his  education  in  the  Italian  theatre  or  the  French 
cabaret,  applying  the  ideas  thus  acquired  in  the  salons 
of  the  capital,  and  ending  his  days  in  his  study,  in 
Moscow  or  on  his  country  estates,  employing  his  time 
in  reading  Voltaire.  His  manners,  his  habits,  his  ideas, 
the  sentiments  which  he  had  made  his  own,  and  the 
very  language  in  which  he  thought,  all  were  of  foreign 
origin,  all  were  imported  from  Europe.  No  living  tie, 
no  organic  function,  united  him  to  the  population  which 
surrounded  him  ;  he  did  no  serious  work,  despite  his 
share  in  the  local  administration,  where  he  was  sub- 
ordinated to  the  governors,  and  the  exploitation  of  his 
estates,  which  was  based  upon  the  labour  of  serfs. 
He  was  a  useless  member  of  society.  A  historical 
superfluity — such  is  the  phrase  which  Klutshevsky 
applies  to  the  species. 

This  verdict,  which  is  that  of  our  foremost  historian, 

1  The  precentors  or  lay  clerks  gave  primary  •  instruction  in  those 
days,  and  even  now  they  teach  in  the  "parish  schools." 


IDEALS  231 

may  be  compared  with  that  of  Herzen,  our  foremost 
political  writer,  who  in  his  youth  had  many  opportuni- 
ties of  observing  the  survivors  of  Russian  voltairianstvo. 

"  The  eighteenth  century  produced  in  the  West," 
he  says,  "  a  wonderful  generation,  especially  in  France, 
which  possessed  all  the  weaknesses  of  the  Regency 
and  all  the  energies  of  Rome  or  Sparta.  These 
prodigies,  Faublas  and  Regulus  combined,  flung  open 
the  door  of  the  Revolution,  and  were  the  first  to  rush 
through  it,  pushing  their  way  in,  only  to  leave  by 
the  '  window  '  of  the  guillotine.  Our  century  produces 
no  more  of  these  vigorous  and  homogeneous  natures  ; 
the  last  century,  on  the  contrary,  evoked  them  almost 
everywhere,  even  where  they  were  superfluous,  where 
they  could  develop  only  by  an  anomaly.  In  Russia, 
those  upon  whom  the  great  Western  wind  had  blown 
became  not  great  historical  figures,  but  '  originals.' 
Foreigners  in  their  own  country,  foreigners  abroad, 
passive  spectators,  spoiled  for  Russian  life  by  their 
Western  prejudices,  and  for  the  West  by  their  Russian 
habits,  they  appeared  as  an  intelligent  superfluity,  astray 
in  an  artificial  life."  l 

Although  they  agree  as  to  the  external  type  of  the 
Russian  voltairiantzy,  Klutshevsky  and  Herzen  do  not 
see  eye  to  eye  as  regards  the  mind  concealed  by  this 
outward  aspect.  Klutshevsky  states  that  these  amateurs 
did  not  suffer  from  the  opposition  between  their  ideals 
and  the  surrounding  realities  ;  that  they  did  not  even 
feel  it  ;  that  they  were  cheerful  and  had  nothing  to 
say  against  the  existing  order  of  things.  Books 
embellished  their  minds,  gave  them  a  certain  brilliance, 
and  sometimes  even  provided  them  with  a  nervous  thrill. 
But  there  the  influence  of  French  ideas  stopped  short  ; 
it  did  not  impel  them  to  form  any  decision  or  to  take 
action  of  any  kind.  It  gave  a  charm  to  their  lives, 
leaving  them  indifferent  to  the  lives  of  others. 

Herzen  gives  a  different  picture  of  these  Voltaireans. 
He  speaks  of  "  their  malicious  raillery,  irritability,  re- 
1  A.  Herzen,  (Euvres,  vol.  vi.  p.  99  (Geneva-Lyons,  1878). 


232  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

moteness  from  humanity,  suspicion,  and  rancour,  a 
result  of  the  clash  between  things  so  different  as  the 
Europe  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  the  life  of  Russia." 

However,  Klutshevsky  did  recognize  individual  cases 
in  which  the  incompatibility  between  the  ideals  of  the 
West  and  the  realities  of  Russia  gave  rise  to  great 
suffering,  and  even  to  despair.  A  tragic  example  of 
this  despair  is  afforded  by  one  Opotshinin,  a  seigneur 
of  the  Government  of  Yaroslavl,  who,  as  a  result  of 
his  European  education,  found  it  impossible  to  resign 
himself  to  the  condition  of  affairs  in  Russia,  and  finally, 
in  1793,  took  his  own  life.  In  his  will  he  explains 
that  "  his  repugnance  for  Russian  life  is  precisely  that 
which  constrained  him  spontaneously  to  decide  his  fate." 
He  then  spoke  of  his  library  : — 

'•'  My  beloved  books,  I  do  not  know  to  whom  I 
should  leave  them  ;  I  am  sure  that  no  one  in  this 
country  has  need  of  them  ;  I  humbly  beg  my  heirs 
to  burn  them.  They  were  my  greatest  treasure  ;  they 
alone  sustained  me  in  life  ;  without  them  my  life  would 
have  been  nothing  but  a  perpetual  regret,  and  I  should 
long  ago  have  left  this  world  in  disgust." 

A  few  minutes  before  his  death  Opotshinin  had  the 
courage  to  begin  the  translation  of  those  verses  of 
Voltaire's  which  begin — 

O  Dieu,  que  nous  ne  connaissons  pas  .  .  .' 

III 

What  Opotshinin  understood  of  his  own  accord  the 
Government  enabled  other  volt  air  iantzy  and  farmazony 
to  realize. 

We  know  what  a  sudden  change  was  produced  in 
Catherine  II,  toward  the  end  of  her  life,  by  the  French 
Revolution.  From  the  admirer  of  the  Encyclopaedists 
she  became  the  enemy  of  all  liberal  ideas,  and  she 
hunted  everywhere  for  signs  of  the  "  French  contagion," 
in  order  to  exterminate   it   pitilessly.      Voltaire's   bust, 

*  Klutshevsky,  Lectures  on  Russian  History.     Lithographic  edition  of 
lectures  delivered  at  the  University  of  Moscow,  Part  IV,  pp.  264  et  seq. 


IDEALS  233 

which   used   to   adorn   her   study,    was,    by   her   orders, 
relegated  to  the  lumber-room. 

Two  remarkable  Russian  writers  fell  as  victims  to 
this  reaction.  They  were  Radishtshev  and  Novikov. 
Both  were  true  zapadniks,  but  they  represented  very 
different  tendencies. 

Alexander  Radishtshev  (1749- 1802),  tne  author  of 
"  the  work  which  suffered  greatly,"  the  Journey  from 
Petersburg  to  Moscow,  was  in  1766  sent  by  the  Govern- 
ment, in  company  with  other  young  men,  to  the  Univer- 
sity of  Leipzig.  There  he  attended  the  lectures  of 
Professors  Gellert  and  Platner.  But  he  preferred 
French  philosophy  to  German  science,  and  read  Voltaire, 
Helvetius,  Raynal,  Mably,  etc.  Under  their  inspira- 
tion, to  which  we  must  add  that  of  Rousseau  and  the 
English  sentimentalists  (and  of  Sterne  in  particular), 
he  wrote  his  famous  book.  His  Journey  is  full  of 
rationalistic  ideas,  such  as  were  preached  by  the 
Encyclopaedists,  concerning  the  rights  of  the  man  and 
the  citizen.  "  Man  is  born  into  the  world  equal  in 
all  things  to  other  men.  We  all  possess  the  same 
organs  ;  we  all  possess  reason  and  will.  .  .  .  We  are 
all  equal,  from  the  time  we  leave  the  maternal  womb, 
in  natural  liberty  ;  we  must  be  equals,  too,  in  the 
face  of  the  restrictions  which  are  imposed  upon  this 
liberty."  Russian  society,  in  which  we  do  not  find 
the  slightest  trace  of  the  liberty  and  equality  de- 
manded by  Radishtshev,  he  condemned  implacably. 
Catherine  II,  now  a  reactionary,  could  not  tolerate 
this  courageous  criticism,  and  although  the  Journey 
from  Petersburg  to  Moscow  had  been  published  with 
the  authorization  of  the  censor,  the  Empress  found 
that  "  the  intention  of  this  book  is  visible  on  every 
page  ;  its  author  is  filled  and  infected  with  French 
error  ;  he  seeks  in  every  way  and  by  every  means 
to  diminish  the  respect  due  to  authority  and  the  power 
of  the  State,  and  to  incite  in  people  a  feeling  of  indig- 
nation against  masters  and  rulers."  Catherine  gave 
orders    that     legal    proceedings    should     be    instituted 


234  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

against  Radishtshev,  and  entrusted  the  examination  to 
the  cruel  police-officer  Sheshkovsky,  who  put  his  victim 
to  the  torture  in  order  to  extort  the  confession  of  his 
errors  and  to  induce  penitence.  Radishtshev  could  not 
bear  the  torture  ;  he  retracted,  declaring  his  book  to 
be  "unreasonable  and  harmful."  He  was  then  con- 
demned to  death  for  his  writings,  but  the  capital 
sentence  was  commuted  for  one  of  perpetual  deporta- 
tion to  Siberia,  whither  he  was  sent  in  Chains.  Paul  I 
restored  him  to  liberty,  and  after  the  accession  of 
Alexander  I  he  even  became  an  official.  But  his 
adversaries  would  not  leave  him  in  peace  ;  and  in 
1802,  fearing  fresh  persecutions,  he  poisoned  himself. 
In  his  person  a  fervent  and  sincere  partisan  of  European 
civilization  succumbed  to  the  resistance  of  the  old 
Russia. 

Nicolas  Novikov  (1744- 18 18)  was  no  more  fortu- 
nate. He,  too,  may  be  regarded  as  a  zapadnik, 
but  of  another  school.  He  was  a  pupil  of  the 
German  freemasons  and  pietists.  German  pietism  was 
diametrically  opposed  to  the  rationalism  of  the  French 
Encyclopaedists  ;  its  sole  aim  was  the  moral  renewal 
of  man.  This  doctrine  attracted  Novikov,  who  found 
himself  under  the  immediate  influence  of  the  German 
freemasons,  and  of  a  certain  Schwarz  in  particular. 
But  he  was  not  one  of  those  masons  who  admit  only 
of  mystical  means  of  human  "  perfection."  On  the 
contrary,  he  united  to  his  mysticism  a  great  and  sincere 
love  of  science  and  an  enthusiasm  for  public  instruc- 
tion. He  founded  printing-presses,  learned  societies, 
and  schools  ;  published  school  textbooks  and  other 
volumes,  reviews,  etc.  He  was,  moreover,  a  philan- 
thropist, and  in  1787,  during  the  famine,  he  came  to 
the  aid  of  the  peasants.  This  beneficent  activity  was 
enough  to  arouse  the  suspicions  of  Catherine.  She 
instructed  an  ecclesiastical  inquisitor,  the  Muscovite 
Archbishop  Platon,  to  examine  the  publications  of 
Novikov  and  to  "  test  "  his  religious  convictions. 
Platon  declared  that  a  portion  of  the  books  published 


IDEALS  235 

by  Novikov  was  useful  and  filled  a  gap  in  the  exist- 
ing scholastic  publications  ;  another  portion  (the 
mystical  volumes)  appeared  to  him  incomprehen- 
sible ;  a  third  portion,  consisting  of  the  writings  of 
the  Encyclopaedists,  he  considered  to  be  harmful.  As 
for  Novikov's  religious  opinions,  Platon  spoke  of  them 
in  the  following  terms  : — 

44  I  pray  the  most  generous  God  that  there  may  be, 
not  only  amid  the  garrulous  flock  confided  to  me  by 
Him  and  by  thee,  most  gracious  sovereign,  but  all 
over  the  world,   such  Christians  as   Novikov." 

Thanks  to  these  attestations,  Novikov  was  left  at 
liberty,  but  not  for  long.  Catherine  always  regarded 
him  as  a  manifestation  of  the  M  French  contagion,"  as 
she  had  regarded  Radishtshev . 

In  1 791  Novikov  saw  that  it  was  expedient  to  close 
his  printing  establishments,  to  cease  publication  or  pro- 
paganda of  any  kind,  and  to  retire  to  his  country, 
estate.  This  voluntary  isolation  did  not  save  him ; 
in  April  1792  a  detachment  of  hussars  was  sent  to 
his  house,  in  order  to  make  a  search  and  arrest  him. 
Dragged  away  amid  the  tears  of  his  peasants,  who  loved 
him  greatly  (which  was  unusual),  he  was  transported 
first  to  Moscow,  then  to  the  fortress  of  Schlusselberg. 
There  the  above-mentioned  Sheshkovsky  "  attended  " 
to  Novikov.  ...  In  August  1792  Catherine  issued  a 
ukase  in  which  she  declared  that  Novikov  deserved  a 
44  pitiless  punishment  for  his  crimes  "  (of  which  the 
ukase  said  never  a  word),  but  that  the  death  penalty 
would  be  commuted  for  fifteen  years'  imprisonment 
in  a  fortress. 

The  injustice  committed  in  respect  of  Novikov  waa 
so  obvious  that,  according  to  a  witness  worthy  of 
credence,  Paul  I,  having  liberated  him  in  1796,  after 
his  accession,  was  said  to  have  asked  pardon  for  his 
dead  mother,  and  even  to  have  knelt  before  him. 

Si  non  e  vero.   .   .  . 

Four  years'  captivity  in  a  fortress  cost  Novikov  dear. 
He  emerged  aged  and  infirm,  and  incapabje  of  further 
work. 


CHAPTER    III 

I.  The  nationalist  reaction  under  Catherine  TI  and  Alexander  I — 
Shtsherbatov  and  Karamzin — The  Russian  reactionaries  and  the 
French  Revolution — The  royalist  emigres.  II.  The  positive  in- 
fluence of  the  ideals  of  the  French  Revolution — Some  opinions. 

I 

The  story  of  Novikov  proves  yet  again  that  Russia 
opposed  almost  insuperable  obstacles  to  the  diffusion 
of  Western  ideas,  even  of  the  most  moderate  nature. 
Moreover,  in  addition  to  persecuting  them  by  means 
of  the  police,  the  reactionaries  endeavoured  to  attack 
them  in  their  essentials,  and  to  deny  that  their  adoption 
could  be  in  any  way  useful.  A  volume  written  by 
Prince  Mikhail  Shtsherbatov,  The  Depravation  of 
Morals  in  Russia,  is  a  memorial  of  this  conservative 
prohibition.  Shtsherbatov  considered  that  Peter  I  had 
gone  too  far  and  too  swiftly  along  the  path  of  reform, 
and  that  the  "  changes  "  introduced  by  him  were  "  ex- 
cessive." According  to  Shtsherbatov,  Peter  I  wanted  to 
obtain  in  a  few  years  such  results  as  might  have  been 
obtained  in  the  course  of  normal  and  natural  evolution 
at  the  end  of  "  three  generations."  The  sudden  and 
forcible  transformation  of  the  old  Russia  into  a 
European  State  was  an  evil,  and  resulted  in  the 
depreciation  of  Russian  manners. 

But  there  were  traces  of  the  European  spirit  even 
in  this  champion  of  conservatism.  His  historical  con- 
ceptions came  from  the  West  ;  his  theory  of  the 
"  science  of  causes  "  was  borrowed  from  Hume  ;  and 
he  owed  something  to  Rousseau  and  to  freemasonry. 

Shtsherbatov's  ideas  had  their  effect  upon  Karamzin. 

236 


IDEALS  237 

This  "  Europeanizer "  of  the  Russian  language  was 
at  the  same  time  one  of  the  chief  leaders  of  the 
political  and  intellectual  conservative  nationalists.  He 
wrote  a  great  History  of  the  Russian  State,  of  which 
Pushkin  said,   in  a  biting  epigram  : — 

The  grace  and  simplicity  of  his  history 
Demonstrate  for  us  with  impartiality 
The  necessity  of  autocracy 
And  the  beauties  of  the  knout. 

Karamzin  expounded  his  ideas  in  a  memoir  On  the 
Old  and  the  New  Russia,  which  he  presented  to 
Alexander  I.  Like  Shtsherbatov  and  all  the  other 
partisans  of  the  old  Russia,  he  condemned,  in  this 
memoir,  the  reforms  of  Peter  I,  and  protested  against 
his  work  of  "  Europeanization."  But  his  especial 
antipathy  was  the  "  liberalism "  born  of  the  French 
Revolution. 

Karamzin  was  in  Paris  during  the  Revolution,  but 
he  understood  nothing  of  it,  and  was  not  even  very 
greatly  interested  in  it.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  in 
his  Letters  of  a  Russian  Traveller  he  describes  (in 
1790  !)  the  gardens  and  the  works  of  art  to  be  seen 
in  Paris,  but  scarcely  remarks  upon  the  fact  that  the 
city  was  in  a  state  of  effervescence.  However,  having 
been  to  see  the  National  Assembly,  he  decided  with 
regret  that  "  its  sittings  were  devoid  of  all  pomp  or 
grandeur."  This  indifference  was  replaced,  toward  the 
end  of  his  life,  by  hatred  of  everything  connected  with 
the  Revolution,  and,  as  happened  to  many  others,  this 
hatred  was  extended  to  the  West  in  general.  A  fervent 
zapadnik  in  his  youth,  he  became  one  of  the  heralds 
of  absolute  nationalism. 

This  complete  change  of  face  was  to  be  observed  in 
other  Russian  thinkers,  some  of  whom  were  anterior  to 
Karamzin.  We  know  what  an  effect  the  French  Revolu- 
tion produced  in  Russia.  But  its  effect  in  the  domain 
of  ideas — of  which  effect  Karamzin  affords  us  only  a 
poor   example— was   far   more   extensive,   indeed   almost 


238  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

incalculable.     Some  of  its  results  were  immediate,  while 
others  were  more  general  and  more  remote. 

At  first  the  Revolution  could  affect  only  the  upper 
classes .  The  masses  of  the  people  knew  nothing  about 
it.  By  the  Russian  aristocracy  it  was  accepted  almost 
as  it  was  accepted  by  the  French  aristocracy.  Some 
of  them  applauded  it.  Count  Paul  Stroganov,  among 
others,  who  was  in  Paris  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Revolution,  was  present  at  the  sessions  of  the  National 
Assembly,  and  posed  as  a  true  Jacobin,  declaring  that 
"the  happiest  day  in  his  life  would  be  that  on  which 
he  should  see  a  similar  revolution  in  Russia."  In 
Petersburg  the  fall  of  the  Bastille  was  celebrated  ; 
Grand  Dukes  declared  themselves  the  partisans  of  the 
Republic.     But  this  enthusiasm  did  not  last. 

Catherine  II  was  the  first  to  understand  that  the  intro- 
duction of  the  principles  and  procedures  of  the  French 
Revolution  would  be  dangerous  to  the  monarchy  and  its 
nobility,  and  she  began  to  oppose  them,  taking  no 
pains  to  restrain  the  expression  of  the  anger  with  which 
she  regarded  the  "  hydra  with  twelve  hundred  heads  ' 
(the  National  Assembly),  the  "  monster  who  sought 
to  be  king "  (Egalite),  and  the  "  asses  of  liberty  " 
(the  members  of  the  National  Assembly).  In  1780 
Catherine  said,  with  pride  :  **■  In  my  country  every 
one  is  free  to  speak  his  mind."  After  the  fall  of  the 
monarchy  in  France  she  suppressed  the  toleration 
hitherto  enjoyed  by  the  freethinkers  and  French 
philosophers  whom  she  had  so  greatly  admired,  and 
asserted  that  "  in  publishing  the  Encyclopedia  Diderot 
and  d'Alembert  had  two  objects  :  firstly,  the  destruc- 
tion of  Christianity  ;  secondly,  the  destruction  of 
monarchies."  She  ordered  Russians  resident  in  France 
to  leave  that  impious  country  without  delay,  expelled 
the  French  residing  in  Russia,  and  prohibited,  firstly, 
the  sale  of  the  Encyclopedia,  and  then  that  of  any 
French  book.  This  prohibition  became  even  more 
stringent  under  Paul  I.  After  the  brief  phase  of 
liberalism  under  Alexander  I   it  was   revived  and  ex- 


IDEALS  239 

tended  by  the  Government  of  Nicolas  I  ;  not  only 
French  books,  but  all  foreign  books  whatsoever  were 
proscribed.  A  strict  censorship  was  instituted  for  all 
books  imported  into  the  country,  and  this  system  is 
still  in  force  to-day  :  a  foreign  publication  cannot  enter 
Russia  until  it  has  passed  the  "  Central  Committee 
of  the  Foreign  Censorship." 

As  for  the  interdict  placed  upon  the  residence  of 
French  subjects  in  Russia,  this  was  abolished  soon 
afterwards  in  favour  of  the  emigre's,  who  were  well 
received  by  the  Russian  aristocrats  and  reactionaries, 
and  by  the  Government  also,  some  being  even 
appointed  to  administrative  posts. 

With  the  Royalists  and  Jesuits,  for  they  too  were 
readily  welcomed,  the  Catholic  propaganda  made  its 
way  into  Russia.  During  the  early  years  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  numbers  of  Russians  became  Catholics, 
which  induced  Joseph  de  Maistre  to  remark  "  that  the 
adhesion  of  the  mind  to  the  Catholic  faith  is  a  very 
speedy  matter  in  Russia,  and.  the  conversions  to 
Catholicism  are  remarkable,  as  much  for  the  number  of 
persons  converted  as  for  the  worldly  position  which 
they  occupy." 

The  majority  of  these  "  conversions  "  were  only 
ephemeral,  and  were  due  to  a  desire  to  be  in  the 
fashion,  as  a  contemporary  assures  us,  many  persons 
(especially  women)  having  been  converted  merely  by 
following  the  prevailing  current,  and  returning  to  the 
bosom  of  the  Orthodox  Church  as  soon  as  it  ebbed.  In 
1 82 1  the  Jesuits  were  expelled,  and  the  Catholic 
proselytism  exercised  by  the  emigres  came  to  an  end. 

However,  this  proselytism  left  traces — not  extensive, 
but  profound — in  the  heart  of  Russian  society  ;  and 
from  time  to  time  extremely  interesting  cases  of  con- 
version to  Catholicism  occurred,  notably  that  of 
Tshaadaev. 

But  before  speaking  of  Tshaadaev  I  must  say  some- 
thing more  of  the  positive  effect  of  the  French  Revo- 
lution. « 


240  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

II 

I  have  already  explained  to  my  readers  the  immediate 
effects  of  the  Revolution  and  the  Napoleonic  Wars 
upon  the  political  movement  then  developing  in  Russia. 
But  the  ideological  influence  of  the  French  Revolution 
exceeded  the  limits  of  these  immediate  effects,  and  has 
survived  until  our  own  days. 

Even  to-day  in  Russia  the  great  Revolution  of  1789 
is  for  some  an  object  of  hatred,  for  others  an  object 
of  admiration.  One  may  say  that  the  attitude  which 
this  or  that  Russian  politician  assumes  toward  the  revo- 
lutionary past  of  France,  and  his  manner  of  appreci- 
ating it,  will  in  a  very  great  measure  enable  us  to 
estimate  his  own  opinions.  In  my  Russia  and  the 
Greed  War  I  have  cited  the  declaration  made  from  the 
tribune  of  the  late  Duma  (1909)  by  the  deputy  Markov, 
leader  of  the  Right,  to  the 'effect  that  "the  French 
Revolution  is  the  most  odious  and  contemptible  act 
of  modern  history,"  and  that  "  the  Republic  means 
the  reign  of  male  and  female  prostitutes."  This  is 
not  merely  the  personal  opinion  of  Markov  himself  ; 
it  is  that  of  all  the  Russian  reactionaries,  some  of  whom 
go  to  such  lengths  in  their  hatred  of  republican  France, 
the  home  of  the  Revolution,  that  even  during  the  present 
war  they  have  expressed  a  desire  that  France  should 
be  crushed  by  Germany,  the  home  of  monarchy  and 
conservatism. 

The  Russian  democrats,  on  the  contrary,  love  France 
precisely  because  she  is  the  incarnation  of  revolutionary 
tradition.  A  true  cult  for  the  French  Revolution  exists 
among  the  democratic  elements  in  Russia.  Even  as  a 
schoolboy  the  young  Russian  indulges  in  this  cult, 
although  the  conservatives  do  their  best  to  inspire  him 
with  aversion  for  the  traditions  of  1789.  I  have  before 
me  the  Memoirs  of  a  Russian  lady,  in  which  she  de- 
scribes the  impressions  received  during  a  course  of 
lectures  on  French  history  which  were  delivered  by 
one  of  the  professors  of  the  Moscow  girls'  school  at 
which  she  was  a  pupil. 


IDEALS  241 

"...  To-day  our  professor  began  to  tell  us  about 
the  French  Revolution.     After  drawing  the  general  out- 
lines of  the  condition  of  France  and  the  mentality  of 
the  French  on  the  eve  of  the  Revolution,  he  described 
the  men  of  the  Revolution.     He  began  with  Mirabeau. 
My  God,   what  a  wonderful  man  was   this  Mirabeau  ! 
...    It  was  a  beautiful  day  of  spring  when  Mirabeau 
quitted  this   life.      He   gave  orders   for  the  window  to 
be  opened.     The  sound  of  the  bells  entered  his  room. 
And  in  the  street  the  urchins  were  crying  :    '  Treachery 
of  Count  Mirabeau  1  '   .    .   .   Oh,  why,  why  did  he  end 
like  that?     Great  men  should  make  a  different  ending  1 
.    .   .  After   Mirabeau,    Marat.      His    severity   frightens 
me.      Everything    about    Marat    is    powerful    and    dis- 
tressing.     Perhaps  I  am  too  small  to  understand  him, 
but  he  gives  me  the  impression  of  a  stupendous  force, 
which   is    to    be   dreaded  !    .   .   .   Then   the    Girondins  1 
Madame  Roland  !      What  energy,   what  determination, 
what  love  for  her  country,  what  enthusiasm,  what  faith 
she   displays  !      How   proud   she   is    at   the   moment   of 
death  !    .    .   .   Vergniaud,    that    brilliant    orator  !      And 
Camille    Desmoulins  !       On    the    eve   of    execution,    in 
prison,  they  gather  together,  they  sing  hymns  to  liberty. 
Camille  Desmoulins  holds  in  his  hand  a  rose  which  his 
wife  has   sent  him.      On  the   following  day,  ascending 
the   scaffold,   he   speaks   to  his   wife.    .   .   .   Ma   cherie! 
...   A  few  days   later  his  wife,   Lucile,  stood  calmly 
before  the  guillotine  awaiting  death. 

"  I  cried  while  the  professor  was  telling  us  this. 
Thanks,  thanks,  my  worthy  professor  I  You  under- 
stood so  well  how  to  stir  and  awaken  what  was  sleep- 
ing in  the  depths  of  my  soul.  Thanks  !  I  know 
now  what  is  the  real  meaning  of  life  I 

"...  When  Danton  was  advised  to  escape,  he  re- 
plied proudly  :  '  Can  I  carry  my  country  with  me  on 
the  soles  of  my  shoes?  "  And  he  remained.  Then,  the 
execution.  He  is  taken  to  the  Place.  He  stands  before 
the  guillotine.  He  speaks  to  the  executioner  :  '  You 
will  show  my  head  to  the  people— it  is  worth  seeing  I  ' 

10 


242  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

"  This  is  real  life  !  These  are  men  !  My  God, 
how  I  envy  them  !  What  am  I  saying?  I  do  not 
envy  them,  I  quiver  with  admiration  for  them,  for 
the  wife  of  Desmoulins.  If  I  had  been  in  her  place 
should  I  not  have  gone  to  my  death  as  courageously, 
following  the  example  of  my  husband,  as  she  did  !  Oh, 
surely,  surely,  I  should  have  gone  joyfully  to  my  death  ! 

"  I  don't  remember  the  moment  when  the  class  broke 
up.  ...  I  rushed  up  to  the  professor  and  begged 
him  to  tell  me  of  books  on  the  Revolution.  He  told 
me  of  some.  .  .  .  Directly  the  classes  were  over  I  ran 
home,  and  then,  without  delay,  to  the  library." 

This  extract  from  a  private  and  personal  diary  enables 
us  to  understand  better  than  a  long  description  just 
what  the  young  Russian  feels  about  the  events  and  the 
men  of  the  French  Revolution. 

The  history  of  the  Revolution  has  become,  in  Russia, 
the  object  of  a  profound  scientific  investigation  ;  and 
we  find  the  names  of  Russian  scholars  among  the  most 
eminent  students  of  the  period. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  ideals  of  the  Revolution, 
and  even  its  phraseology,  have  found  their  way  into 
the  programmes  and  the  practices  of  our  political 
parties.  For  example,  among  the  demands  of  all  the 
parties  of  the  extreme  Left  we  find  that  of  the  con- 
vocation of  a  Constituent  Assembly.  The  idea  of  the 
confiscation  of  the  landed  property  of  the  great  seigneurs 
for  the  benefit  of  the  peasants,  which  forms  part  of 
the  programme  of  these  parties,  is  another  inheritance 
from  the  Revolution.  One  of  the  favourite  songs  of 
the  Russian  workers  is  a  "  Labour  Marseillaise"  that 
is,  a  Russian  socialist  hymn  sung  to  the  air  of  the 
French  Marseillaise. 

The  tradition  of  the  French  Revolution  survives  and 
finds  an  echo  even  in  the  debates  of  the  Russian  Duma, 
when  Mirabeau  or  Robespierre  is  quoted,  or  the  epithet 
of  "  Jacobin  "  is  hurled  from  one  bench  to  another, 
or  the  Tsar's  Ministers  are  reminded  of  the  fate  of 
Louis  XVI. 


IDEALS  243 

We  may  therefore  say  with  Dr.  Sarolea,  the  author 
of  The  French  Revolution  and  the  Russian  Revolution, 
and  with  M.  Haumant,  that  the  French  Revolution,  for 
the  Russians,  "  is  not  a  thing  of  the  dead  past,  already 
remote,  but  a  living  actuality." 

The  love  and  admiration  which  the  Russian  democrats 
feel  for  France,  as  the  home  of  the  Revolution,  explains 
the  amazement  with  which  they  sometimes,  indeed 
frequently,  observe  the  indifference  displayed  by  middle- 
class  French  society  as  regards  the  internal  political 
situation  in  Russia.  To  be  sure,  we  cannot  say  that  the 
French  bourgeoisie  has  displayed  any  sympathy  for  the 
Russian  reaction  ;  but  it  is  perhaps  too  tolerant  of  it. 
I  can  very  well  understand  that  the  possibility  of 
German  aggression  and  the  necessity  of  maintaining 
the  Franco -Russian  alliance  has  obliged  France  to  be 
sparing  of  her  criticism  of  her  ally's  policy.  Still, 
as  I  demonstrated  in  my  Russia  and  the  Great  War, 
this  policy  was  harmful,  even  in  its  effects  upon  our 
military  strength. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  reserve  displayed  by  French 
society  in  the  matter  of  "  Russian  affairs  "  is  explained 
by  the  fact  that  France  is  our  creditor.  A  creditor, 
in  general,  thinks  only  of  the  payment  of  interest  and 
the  repayment  of  the  principal  of  his  loan  ;  the  methods 
by  which  his  debtor  acquits  himself  do  not  greatly 
concern  him. 

What  does  principally  concern  the  creditor  is  the 
advantages  of  his  investment.  Nothing  else  matters 
greatly.  Hence,  for  anything  but  his  money,  an  in- 
difference which  often  amounts  to  cruelty.  Moreover, 
the  French  capitalists  acquire  Russian  stock  by  the 
offices  of  the  Russian  Government,  behind  which  they 
fail  to  perceive  the  Russian  people.  But  a  people  and 
its  government  are  not  necessarily  the  same  thing. 
There  are  moments  when  a  government  has  need  of 
money  in  order  to  stifle  the  just  revolt  of  its  people, 
and  a  people  does  not  consider  that  it  owes  a  debt  of 
gratitude   to   those   who    lend  money   to    its   oppressor. 


244  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

For  example,  by  subscribing  to  the  loan  of  1906  re- 
publican France  prevented  the  fall  of  the  Tsarist  auto- 
cracy. Has  she  any  right  to  feel  indignant  because 
the  Russian  democrats,  against  whom  she  sided,  allowed 
her  to  perceive  their  profound  amazement  and  their 
bitter  disappointment,  even  if  these  were  expressed  with 
violence  and  scant  politeness,  as  in  Maxim  Gorky's 
letter  "  to  beautiful  France,"  whose  hand,  he  said,  "  had 
closed  the  path  of  liberty  to  a  whole  people  "? 

M.  Emile  Haumant,  professor  in  the  Sorbonne,  in 
his  interesting  work  on  French  culture  in  Russia,  ex- 
plains the  resentment  which  is  often  displayed  by  the 
Russian  democrats  by  the  ideal  which  they  have  formed 
of  the  duty  of  France  ;  they  look  to  her,  he  says,  for 
a  "perpetual  repetition  of  the  revolutionary  gesture." 

"  For  them  we  are  the  dancing  dervishes  of  the 
Revolution  !  "  he  says.     "  Turn,  turn,  turn  for  ever  1  "  1 

M.  Haumant  is  mistaken.  The  Russian  democrats 
reproach  France  not  with  refusing  to  continue  the  Revo- 
lution, but  for  the  aid  which  they  lent  the  dancing 
dervishes  of  the  counter-revolution. 

"  Whatever  we  do,  we  shall  always  shock  those 
idealists  who  consider  that  our  past  condemns  us  to  the 
indefinite  repetition  of  the  same  gesture,"  says  M. 
Haumant.  But  I  think  M.  Haumant  himself  under- 
stands that  the  past  does  involve  an  obligation,  and 
that  the  Russian  democrats  have  the  right  regretfully 
to  compare  the  doings  of  the  Frenchmen  of  the  Revo- 
lution, who  carried  liberty  into  foreign  lands  on  the 
points  of  their  bayonets  and  overturned  thrones,  with 
the  action  of  their  descendants,  who  often  bestow  money 
and  security  upon  autocrats.  But  in  spite  of  all,  there 
is,  in  the  democratic  circles  of  Russia,  a  vast  and  in- 
exhaustible store  of  sympathy  for  France.  Her  intel- 
lectual influence  in  Russia  is  enormous.  Even  Gorky, 
who  "  spat  blood  and  gall  "  into  the  face  of  France, 
is,  like  all  his  political  co-religionists,  a  great  admirer 
of  the  French  people,  of  the  history  of  France,  so  full 
1  Haumant,  La  Culture  francaise  en  Russie,  p.  431. 


IDEALS  245 

of  heroic  deeds,  and  of  her  noble  literature.  Interviewed 
by  a  contributor  to  Le  Temps  in  191  o,  Gorky 
M  assured  him  that  he  never  ceased  to  advise  Russian 
writers  to  read  the  French  writers,  and  again  the  French 
writers,  always  the  French  writers." 

The  affection  of  the  Russian  democracy  for  France 
and  her  heroic  traditions  has  survived  even  the  most 
painful  tests,  not  the  least  of  which  was  the  war  of 
1870.  A  well-known  Russian  critic,  M.  Kranichfeld, 
has  recently  described  the  aspect  of  Russian  society 
during  this  war,  and  this  is  what  he  says  : — 

"  The  war  between  France  and  Prussia  was  of 
absorbing  interest  to  the  more  cultivated  minds  of 
Russia.  '  It  introduced  hatred  and  discord  into  our 
life,'  said  a  great  Russian  review,  Otetshestvennyia 
Zapiski  (Annals  of  the  Fatherland),  which  appears  in 
Petersburg  and  enjoys  a  great  authority.  '  The  father 
took  arms  against  the  son,  brother  against  brother, 
husband  against  wife,  and  all  this  because  some 
sympathized  with  France  and  desired  her  to  win,  while 
others  sympathized  with  Prussia,  and  hoped  for  a 
Prussian  victory.' 

"  '  The  majority  of  notable  Russians,'  says  the  same 
review,  '  are  on  the  side  of  Prussia.  As  for  the  defence 
of  France,  that  has  been  undertaken  by  the  small  fry.'  " 

Another  writer  of  the  same  period  (M.  Nikitenko) 
states  in  his  memoirs  : — 

"  In  the  upper  circles  the  sympathy  is  for  Prussia, 
while  throughout  the  people  there  is  an  equally  powerful 
hostility  toward  them." 

But  it  is  in  the  work  of  our  great  satiric  writer, 
Mikhail  Soltykov  (unhappily  unknown  abroad),  that  the 
love  of  France  finds  its  most  inspired  expression  : — 

"  Poor  France  !  "  he  wrote  in  1870.  "  Once  again 
you  become  the  expiatory  victim  !  The  world  regarded 
you  as  a  flame  which  rekindled  the  life  of  humanity, 
and  now  any  native  of  Mecklenburg-Strelitz  can  with- 
out restraint  describe  you  as  a  collection  of  imbeciles. 
Let  him  be,  this  native  of  Mecklenburg-Strelitz  I     He 


246  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

has  taken  from  you  all  that  he  lacked.  At  the  end  of 
the  eighteenth  century  you  gasve  him  the  desire  for 
liberty  ;  in  1848  you  gave  him  the  desire  to  establish 
'  the  great  Fatherland.'  Nevertheless,  you  are  guilty. 
You  are  guilty  because  you  were  not  able  to  create 
'order.'  .  .  .  While  you  were  creating  liberty  the 
Mecklenburg-Strelitzer,  Jiaving  no  need  to  create  that 
which  already  existed,  thanks  to  you,  preferred  '  a 
certain  narrowness  rather  than  a  breadth  of  principle.' 
Under  protection  of  your  political  and  social  convul- 
sions, he  secretly  examined  the  problem,  far  more 
accessible  to  his  intelligence,  of  the  alliance  between 
dishonesty  and  imposture  on  the  one  hand,  and 
patriotism  on  the  other,  and  it  must  be  admitted  that 
he  has  solved  it  in  a  fairly  satisfactory  manner  (without 
exceeding  the  mean,   which  is  so  familiar  to  him).    .    . 

"  Yes,  you  are  guilty,  France  !  Pursuing  aims  of 
world-wide  scope,  you  have  forgotten  the  existence  of 
millions  of  little  domestic  details,  whose  accomplish- 
ment assures  life  against  usurpations,  and  forgetful- 
ness  of  which  may  condemn  even  the  best  intentions 
to  annihilation.  The  Mecklenbergers,  the  Hessians, 
the  Hohenzollerns  have  understood  this  better  than  you, 
although,  on  the  other  hand,  they  have  not,  perhaps, 
sufficiently  understood  that  at  times,  no  matter  what 
care  may  be  given  to  the  petty  details,  the  house  may 
be  built  upon  the  sand,  if  the  general  ideas  which  you 
proclaim  have  not   been  used   as   foundations. 

"  A  native  of  Meiningen,  in  his  paltriness,  does  not 
work  out  the  smallest  idea  except  for  his  own  ex- 
clusive use.  A  dummkopf,  on  the  contrary,  casts  even 
the  grandest  ideas  before  poor  minds ....  The  Gallic 
cock  knows  how  to  raise  a  principle  to  its  true  height." 

Soltykov  was  a  radical  and  freethinker.  Here  is  the 
opinion  of  the  great  Russian  philosopher,  V.  Soloviev. 
A  Christian,  and  an  enemy,  in  principle,  of  the  methods 
of  the  Revolution,  he  yet  considered  that  the  French 
Revolution,  and  the  Whole  history  of  France  in  general, 
were  of  universal  significance  : — 


IDEALS  247 

M  The  period  of  the  great  Revolution  and  the 
Napoleonic  wars,"  writes  Soloviev  in  one  of  his  works 
(The  Justification  of  Good:  Moral  Philosophy),  "is,  if 
not  on  account  of  its  content,  at  least  on  account  of 
the  internal  tension  of  popular  life  and  the  amplitude 
of  external  action,  the  culminating  point  of  the  national 
development  of  France ;  it  was  then  that  this  country 
best  expressed  her  universal  importance.  Of  course, 
the  rights  of  the  man  and  the  citizen  were  half 
imaginary  ;  and  the  revolutionary  trinity — liberty, 
equality,  fraternity — was  realized  in  a  sufficiently  curious 
manner.  In  any  case,  the  enthusiasm  of  this  people 
for  these  universal  ideas  shows  plainly  enough  that  it 
was  a  stranger  to  any  form  of  narrow  nationalism.  .  .  . 
Apart  from  this  period,  France  has  always  been  dis- 
tinguished by  her  universal  intelligence  and  her  com- 
municative character  ;  she  is  acquainted  with,  and  is 
anxious  to  assimilate,  the  ideas  of  others,  to  give  them 
a  completed  form,  and  then  to  give  them  to  the  world. 
This  peculiar  quality,  which  makes  the  history  of  France 
a  brilliant  and  lucid  summary  of  European  history, 
is  so  conspicuous,  and  has  so  often  been  remarked, 
that  there  is  no  need  to  insist  upon  it."  l 

If  from  the  Christian  and  anti-revolutionary  philo- 
sopher we  turn  to  the  atheist  and  anarchist,  Prince 
Kropotkin,  we  find  in  him  the  same  opinion  as  to  the 
universal  character   of   the  great   Revolution. 

"  The  work  of  the  French  Revolution,"  writes  Prince 
Kropotkin  in  his  work  on  this  subject,  "  is  not  con- 
fined merely  to  that  which  it  obtained  and  that  which 
it  maintained  in  France  ;  it  extends  also  to  the 
principles  which  it  bequeathed  to  the  following  century, 
to  the  landmark  which  it  planted  for  the  future.  .  .  . 
Whatever  nation  may  to-day  enter  upon  the  path  of 
revolution,  it  will  inherit  that  which  our  ancestors  per- 
formed in  France.  The  blood  which  they  shed  was 
shed  for  humanity.     The  sufferings  which  they  endured 

1  J.  B.  Severac,  Vladimir  Soloviev.    Introduction  el  choix  de  textes, 
French  cd.,  p.  144. 


248  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

they  bore  for  the  whole  of  humanity.  Their  struggles, 
and  the  ideas  which  they  put  forward,  and  the  clash 
of  these  ideas — all  this  is  the  inheritance  of  humanity."  " 
Thus,  when  the  Russian  democrats  adopt  the  ideals 
of  the  French  Revolution,  they  make  common  cause  with 
humanity  itself. 

1  P.  Kropotkin,  La  Grande  Revolution,  Paris,  1909. 


CHAPTER   IV 

I.  Catholic  influence  in  Russia — Tshaadaev  and  his  philosoph  y  of 
history.  II.  Vladimir  Solovicv  and  the  ideal  of  the  Universal 
Church. 


Tshaadaev  reminds  us  slightly  of  Khovrostinin,  for 
he,  too,  was  a  zapadnik  with  a  Catholic  shell,  though 
this  was  far  thicker  than  Khbvrostinin's.  The  latter 
had  only  a  veneer  of  Catholicism!  ;  he  used  his  religion 
merely  as  a  standpoint  for  his  criticisms  of  the  old 
Russia,   while   Tshaadaev   was   steeped  in  Catholicism. 

Born  in  1794,  Piotr  Tshaadaev  received  a  brilliant 
education  in  an  aristocratic  environment.  He  studied 
at  the  University  of  Moscow.  Then  he  took  part,  as 
an  officer  of  the  Guard,  in  the  war  against  Napoleon. 
He  lived  in  Petersburg  until  1821,  enjoying  the  reputa- 
tion of  a  philosopher.  We  find  him  among  the  future 
Decembrists.  In  1821  he  left  the  Guard  and  the  salons 
of  Petersburg  and  passed  two  years  in  solitude.  In 
1823  he  went  abroad,  and  while  suffering  from  a 
nervous  malady  he  became  influenced  by  the  mystic 
Jung-Stilling.  He  had  prepared  himself  for  this 
influence  by  the  reading  of  the  works  of  the  French 
Catholic  writers — Joseph  de  Maistre  and  Chateaubriand. 
In  1826  he  returned  to  Russia,  where,  after  the  failure 
of  the  Decembrist  movement,  the  reaction  triumphed 
"  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  gallows."  Again  he  retired 
from  the  world,  passing  four  years  as  an  anchorite.  In 
1830  he  returned  to  the  intellectual  world,  taking  part 
in  the  debates  of  the  literary  and  philosophical  societies 
of  Moscow,  where  two  great  movements  were  in  process 

349 


250  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

of  formation  :  the  Slavophile  movement  and  Occi- 
dentalism. He  was  more  in  sympathy  with  this  last 
movement,  but  his  own  Occidentalist  ideas  were  based 
upon  Catholicism,  while  other  zapadniki  based  them- 
selves upon  the  idealistic  philosophy  of  Germany  or 
the  Utopian  socialism  of  France.  Tshaadaev  expounded 
his  opinions  in  his  Philosophical  Letters. 

The  first  of  these  Letters  appeared  in  1836,  in  a 
Muscovite  review,  and  produced  an  echo,  according 
to  Herzen's  expression,  "  like  that  of  a  gunshot  in 
a  dark  night,"  provoking  quite  a  tempest  of  indignation 
in  official  and  "  right-thinking  "  circles.  It  was  an 
indictment  of  the  old  Russia,  and  an  ardent  hymn  of 
praise  to  the  glory  of  Western  civilization,  the  highest 
manifestation  of  which,  in  Tshaadaev 's  eyes,  was 
Catholicism.  Of  course,  a  "  Russian  patriot  of  German 
origin  "  appeared  (a  certain  Viguel),  who  did  not 
scruple  to  denounce  Tshaadaev  as  suspect  of  subversive 
ideas.  Another  "  Russian  "  patriot  of  like  origin,  Count 
von  Benckendorf,  chief  of  the  gendarmerie  (the  political 
police),  undertook  to  look  into  the  matter,  and  having 
examined  the  culprit's  Philosophical  Letter  (of  which, 
no  doubt,  he  did  not  understand  very  much),  he  dis- 
covered it  to  be  written  with  criminal  intent. 

Nicolas  I,  at  von  Benckendorf's  suggestion,  gave 
the  order  that  Tshaadaev  should  be  officially  declared 
insane,  and  should  be  confined  to  his  house,  where  he 
was  to  be  under  police  and  medical  supervision.  After 
a  year  of  this  supervision  a  new  decision  of  the 
Emperor  forbade  Tshaadaev  to  write. 

Despite  this  absurd  prohibition,  Tshaadaev  did  not 
cease  writing  ;  he  even  published  a  remarkable  Apology 
of  a  Madman,  in  which  he  defended  himself  against 
the  attacks  of  his  adversaries,  and  against  "  those  whose 
cries  had  unsettled  his  quiet  life,  and  had  once  more 
launched  upon  the  ocean  of  human  wretchedness  his 
ship,  which  had  grounded  at  the  foot  of  the  Cross." 
But  the  persecution  to  which  the  Government  subjected 
him  made  it   impossible  for  him  to  live  and  write  in 


IDEALS  251 

tranquillity,  and  hampered  the  expression  of  his  ideas. 
This  is  why  this  great  thinker  was  unable  to  give  to  his 
country  and  to  the  world  all  that  he  might  have  given 
under  other  conditions. 

However,  what  we  have  of  Tshaadaev's  is  of  the 
highest  interest,  as  it  is  the  first  noteworthy  attempt 
to  construct  a  philosophy  of  Russian  history  against  a 
background    of    international    history. 

What  is  this  philosophy? 

Its  principal  point,  its  basis,  consists  of  the  statement 
of  Russia's  moral  and  spiritual  isolation  in  the  world. 

"  It  is  one  of  the  most  deplorable  features  of  our 
singular  civilization  that  those  truths  which  elsewhere 
are  among  the  most  trivial,  even  in  peoples  far  less 
advanced  than  ourselves  in  some  respects,  have  yet 
to  be  discovered  by  us.  This  is  because  we  have 
never  gone  forward  with  the  other  peoples  ;  we  belong 
to  none  of  the  great  families  of  the  human  species  ; 
we  are  neither  of  the  West  nor  of  the  East,  and  we 
have  the  traditions  of  neither.  Situated,  as  it  were, 
outside  the  times,  the  universal  education  of  the  human 
species  has  passed  us  by."  l 

Comparing  the  history  of  Russia  with  that  of  the  other 
nations,  Tshaadaev  found  that  the  difference  was  not  to 
the  credit  of  his  own  country.  There  is,  he  said,  for 
every  nation  a  time  of  violent  upheaval,  of  passionate 
restlessness,  an  age  of  intense  emotions  and  great  under- 
takings, when  the  nations  bestir  themselves  impetuously, 
with  no  apparent  motive,  but  not  without  advantage  to 
posterity.  All  societies  have  passed  through  these 
periods.  But  "  we  Russians  have  gone  through  nothing 
of  the  kind.  First  a  brutal  barbarism,  then  a  period  of 
gross  superstition  ;  then  a  foreign  domination,  ferocious 
and  debasing,  the  spirit  of  which  was  later  on  inherited 
by  the  national  power  ;  .  .  .  a  dull,  gloomy  existence, 
without  vigour,  without  energy  .  .  .  there  is  the 
mournful  history  of  our  youth." 

■  (Euvres    choisies    de    Pierre    Tshaadaev   (Paris,    1862),    pp.    14-15 
(French  ed.). 


252  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

Unlike  the  Russian  Slavophiles,  Tshaadaev  denied 
that  the  past  of  Russia  possessed  any  value,  or  any 
moral  or  educative  significance. 

"  Glance  down  the  centuries  we  have  traversed,"  he 
says,  "  over  all  the  ground  we  have  covered  ;  you  will 
not  find  a  single  affecting  memory,  not  a  single  vener- 
able monument,  which  will  speak  to  you  of  the  past 
ages  with  the  power  that  recalls  them  in  a  living  and 
picturesque  manner.  We  live  only  in  the  narrowest 
present,  without  a  past  and  without  a  future,  in  the 
midst  of  a  dead  calm." 

Having  no  traditions  of  her  o]wn,  Russia  has  no 
traditions  common  to  her  and  the  rest  of  European 
humanity:  "Our  first  years,  passed  in  an  immovable 
stupor,  left  no  trace  upon  our  minds,  and  there  is 
nothing  individual  upon  which  we  can  base  our  ideas  ; 
isolated  by  a  strange  destiny  from  the  universal  move- 
ment of  humanity,  we  gathered  none  of  the  traditional 
ideas  of  the  human  species.  Yet  the  life  of  nations  is 
founded  upon  such  ideas  ;  their  future  grows  out  of 
these  ideas,  and  their  moral  development  proceeds 
therefrom." 

These  traditional  ideas  give  all  the  peoples  of  Euffipe 
a  "  common  physiognomy,  a  family  expression." 
Tshaadaev  believes  that  "  in  spite  of  the  general 
division  of  these  peoples  into  the  Latin  branch  and 
the  Teutonic  branch,  into  Southern  peoples  and 
Northern  peoples,,  there  is  a  common  tie  which  unites 
them  all  in  a  single  group,  a  tie  plainly  visible  to  those 
who  have  studied  their  general  history."  This  "  in- 
herited patrimony  of  ideas  "  gives  these  peoples  "  a 
certain  mental  method  "  which  is  lacking  in  the 
Russians.  "  The  syllogism  of  the  West  is  unknown  to 
us,"  says  Tshaadaev.  "  There  is  something  more  than 
frivolity  in  our  best  heads.  .  .  .  There  is  nothing  pf 
that  wanton  lightness  with  which  the  Erench  used  to 
be  reproached  long  ago,  and  which  after  all  was  only 
a  facile  manner  of  conceiving  things>  which  excluded 
neither  depth  nor  breadth  of  mind,  and  which  added  an 


IDEALS  253 

infinite  grace  and  charm  to  intercourse  ;  it  is  the  heed- 
lessness of  a  life  without  experience  and  without  fore- 
sight, which  refers  itself  to  nothing  further  than  the 
ephemeral  life  of  the  individual  detached  from  the 
species.  .  .  .  The  experience  of  the  ages  means 
nothing  to  us  ;  periods  and  generations  have  gone  by 
but  have  brought  us  no  fruit.  One  would  say,  to  look 
at  us,  that  the  general  law  of  humanity  had  been 
revoked  for  us.  Solitaries  in  the  world,  we  have  given 
nothing  to  the  world,  we  have  taught  nothing  to  the 
world.  .  .  .  Not  one  useful  thought  has  genrdnated 
on  the  barren  soil  of  our  country,  ;  not  one  great  truth 
has  sprung  up  in  our  midst." 

To  those  who  would  oppose  to  Tshaadaev's  indictment 
the  age  of  Peter  the  Great  as  the  period  of  Europeaniza- 
tion,  when  Russia  entered  the  family  of  the  Western 
peoples,  Tshaadaev  replies  by  the  following  argument, 
in  which  he  seeks  to  emphasize  the  external  and 
superficial  character   of   Peter's    work  : — 

"  Once  a  great  man  determined  to  civilize  us,  and, 
in  order  to  give  us  a  foretaste  of  the  light,  he  threw, 
us  the  mantle  of  civilization  ;  we  picked  up  the  mantle, 
but  we  did  not  touch  civilization." 

Tschaadaev  then  proceeds  to  explain  all  these  sad 
peculiarities  of  the  mind  and  the  history  of  Russia. 
He  finds  his  explanation  in  the  schism  which  occurred 
in  the  Christian  Church,  dividing  it  into  the  Catholic 
Church  and  the  Byzantine  Church,  to  which  latter  the 
Russians  adhered. 

"  While  the  edifice  of  modern  civilization  was  rising 
from  the  thick  of  the  struggle  against  the  vigorous 
barbarism  of  the  Northern  peoples  and  the  lofty  ideas 
of  religion,  what  were  we  doing?  Impelled  by  a  fatal 
destiny,  we  were  about  to  seek  in  miserable  Byzantium, 
the  object  of  the  profound  contempt  of  these  peoples, 
the  moral  code  which  was  to  educate  us.  A  moment 
earlier  an  ambitious  mind  (Photius)  had  removed  this 
family  from  the  universal  fraternity  ;  it  was  this  idea, 
disfigured  by  human  passion,  that  we  accepted  at  that 


254  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

time.  The  vitalizing  principle  of  unity  animated  every- 
thing in  Europe.  Everything  emanated  from  this  idea  ; 
everything  converged  upon  it.  The  whole  intellectual 
movement  of  the  time  tended  only  toi  establish  the  unity 
of  human  thought,  and  every  impulse  was  derived  from' 
the  urgent  need  of  arriving  at  a  universal  ideal  which 
is  the  genius   of  modern  times." 

Only  the  Russian  people  remained  "  alien  to  this 
wonderful  principle."  It  remained  outside  that  other 
great  European  movement:  the  Renaissance.  "By 
turning  back  to  pagan  antiquity  the  Christian  world 
discovered  those  forms  of  the  beautiful  which  it  had 
so  far  lacked.  Secluded  by  our  schism,  nothing  of  what 
was  happening  in  Europe  reached  us.  We  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  great  business  of  the  world.  The  notable 
qualities  with  which  religion  had  endowed  the  modern 
peoples  .  .  .  those  new  forces  with  which  it  had  en- 
riched the  human  intelligence  ;  the  manners  which 
submission  to  an  unarmed  authority  had  rendered  as 
gentle  as  they  had  at  first  been  brutal  ;  nothing  of  all 
this  took  place  in  Russia.  .  .  .  While  the  world  was 
entirely  reconstructing  itself,  nothing  was  built  in 
Russia  ;  we  remained  hidden  in  our  hovels  of  poles 
and  thatch.  In  a  word,  the  new  destinies  of  the  human 
race  were  not  for  us.  Christians  though  we  were,  the 
fruit  of  Christendom  was  not  ripening  for  us." 

In  this  extreme  pessimism  as  regards  the  destinies 
of  Russia,  Tshaadaev  was  in  profound  disagreement 
with  the  foolish  and  hypocritical  optimism  of  the  ruling 
circles  and  the  reaction,  the  typical  representative  of 
which,  Count  Ouvarov,  was  convinced,  and  publicly 
declared,  that  the  past  of  Russia  was  admirable,  its 
present  more  than  admirable,  and  its  future  would 
surpass  imagination.  A  veritable  religion,  a  veritable 
adoration  of  the  existing  system,  was  proclaimed  by 
this  spokesman  of  the  official  Russia. 

Ouvarov  and  others  like  him  believed  that  they  loved 
Russia  and  that  Tshaadaev  hated  and  despised  her. 
Tshaadaev  was  of  the  contrary  opinion.     In  his  Apology 


IDEALS  255 

of  a  Madman,  in  which,  according  to  his  own  expression, 
he  "  attempted  to  discover  what  are  the  relations  of  a 
man  smitten  with  insanity  by  order  of  the  supreme 
tribunal  of  the  country  to  his  fellow-creatures,  his 
fellow-citizens  and  his  God,"  Tshaadaev  holds  that 
"  there  are  several  ways  of  loving  one's  country  ;  the 
Samoyed,  for  example,  who  loves  the  native  snows 
which  render  him  myopic,  the  smoky  yourt  in  which  he 
remains  hidden  for  half  his  days,  the  rancid  fat  of  his 
reindeer,  which  surrounds  him  with  a  nauseating  atmo- 
sphere, certainly  does  not  love  his  country  after  the  same 
fashion  as  the  British  citizen,  proud  of  his  institutions 
and  of  the  high  civilization  of  his  glorious  island.  .  ,.  . 
Love  of  country  is  a  beautiful  thing,  but  there  is  one 
finer  thing,  and  that  is  the  love  of  truth.  .  .  .  It  is  not 
by  the  road  of  the  fatherland,  but  by  the  road  of  truth, 
that  we  ascend  to  heaven."  l 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  Tshaadaev  consciously 
intended  to  belittle  and  humiliate  his  country  and  its 
peoples,  as  his  adversaries  asserted.  On  the  contrary, 
he  was  convinced  that  it  was  by  an  unhappy  chance  that 
Russia  had  strayed  from  the  great  highway  of  universal 
civilization,  and  that  her  place  was  with  the  European 
peoples.  He  protests  against  "the  European  peoples, 
who  are  strangely  mistaken  with  regard  to  the 
Russians."  "  They  persist  in  surrendering  us  to  the 
East :  by  a  sort  of  instinct  of  European  nationality  they 
thrust  us  back  into  the  East  so  that  they  shall  not  meet 
us  again  in  the  West,"  writes  Tshaadaev  in  a  letter  to 
Alexander  Turgenev.  But  for  Tshaadaev  Russia  had 
the  right  of  communion  with  the  West.  "  We  are 
situated  in  the  East  of  Europe,  that  is  certain,  but  we 
have  never  for  all  that  been  a  part  of  the  East.  The 
East  has  a  history  which  has  nothing  in  common  with 
that  of  our  country.  We  are  simply  a  Northern  country, 
and  by  our  ideas  as  much  as  by  climate  we  are  very  far 
removed  from  the  '  perfumed  vale  of  Kashmir  '  and 
the  sacred   banks   of   the   Ganges."2 

1  QLuvres  choisies  de  Pierre  Tshaadaev,  p.  127.  2  Ibid.  p.  141. 


256  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

Tshaadaev  cherished  the  dream  that  "  a  day  would 
come  when  the  Russians  would  find  a  place  in.  the 
midst  of  intellectual  Europe,  as  we  already  stand  in  the 
midst  of  political  Europe  ;  more  powerful  then  by  virtue 
of  our  intelligence  than  we  are  to-day  by  virtue  of  our 
material   strength." 

But  in  order  that  this  dream  should  be  realized  it  was 
essential  that  the  spiritual  and  moral  unity  between 
Russia  and  the  W^est,  now  shattered,  should  be  re- 
established. And  as  Tshaadaev  was  convinced  that 
Catholicism  was  the  best  and  only  true  guardian  of  the 
spiritual  unity  of  Europe,  he  called  upon  his  people 
to  adopt  the   Catholic  ideal. 

It  would  not  be  difficult  to  indicate  the  weak 
points  and  the  errors  of  Tshaadaev 's  argument.  It 
would  be  very  easy  to  demonstrate  that  the  European 
and  universal  civilization  which  he  so  greatly  valued 
was  not  merely  the  work  of  Catholicism,  and  that  many 
of  its  important  and  primordial  elements  were,  on  the 
contrary,  born  of  the  conflict  between  secular  society 
and  the  Catholic  Church.  But  to  Tshaadaev  the 
Catholic  ideal  was  in  reality  of  importance  not  as  an 
ecclesiastical  and  religious  ideal,  but  rather  as  a 
political  and  social  ideal.  To  him  it  was  the  symbol 
of  the  unity  of  European  civilization.  And  he  wished 
his  country  to  play  its  part  in  that  unity. 

"  Believe  me,  I  cherish  my  country  more  than  any 
of  you,"  he  declared,  addressing  his  adversaries.  "  I 
am  ambitious  :  I  wish  to  see  her  glorious.  .  .  .  But  I 
have  not  learned,  to  love  my  country  with  closed,  eyes, 
with  bowed  head,  with  shut  lips.  I  consider  that  one 
can  be  useful  to  one's  country  only  on  condition  of 
seeing  it  clearly  ;  I  believe  that  the  time  of  blind  love 
is  past,  that  to-day  one  owes  one's  country  the  truth 
before  all  else.  I  love  my  country  as  Peter  the  Great 
taught  me  to  love  it.  I  have  not,  I  admit,  that  fatuous 
lazy  patriotism  which  slumbers  amid  its  illusions,  and 
with  which,  unhappily,  many  of  our  best  minds  are 
to-day  afflicted.     I  think  that  if  we  came  after  the  rest 


IDEALS  257 

it    was    in    order    that    we    shall    do    better    than    the 
rest." 

And  Tshaadaev  hopes  that  Russia's  long  isolation 
and  solitude  will  perhaps  be  of  value  to  her  in  the 
accomplishment  of  her  future  mission,  because  "  the 
great  things  have  always  come  from  the   wilderness." 

II 

Half  a  century  later  the  Catholic  tradition  found; 
expression  in  the  works  of  another  remarkable  Russian 
thinker,  Vladimir  Soloviev,  whose  name  I  have  already 
had  occasion  to  mention.  His  French  biographer  and 
commentator,  M.  J.  B.  Sdverac,  says  of  him  that 
"  Vladimir  Soloviev  deserves  to  be  described  as  '  the 
first  Russian  philosopher.'  And,  indeed,  until  his  day 
Russia  had  possessed  no  philosopher  in  the  Western, 
European  sense  of  the  word."  ■  Without  exaggerating  to 
this  extent,  we  may,  however,  admit  that  Soloviev  was 
one  of  the  most  original  figures  in  the  world  of  Russian 
thought  toward  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

Born  in  1853  and  dying  in  1900,  Vladimir  Soloviev 
left  behind  him,  in  addition  to  his  philosophical  works, 
a  reputation  for  great  honesty  and  great  moral  courage. 
Although  by  no  means  a  revolutionary,  he  protested 
against  all  kinds  of  injustice,  and  he  fought  for  liberty. 
When,  after  the  assassination  of  Alexander  II  (on  the 
1st  of  March  1881),  people  were  waiting  for  the  execu- 
tion of  the  Terrorists,  who  were  accused  of  this  act, 
Soloviev  made  a  public  speech  in  which  he  appealed  to 
Alexander's  successor  to  pardon  his  father's  murderers  : — 

"  To-day,"  he  said,  "  the  regicides  are  undergoing 
their  trial,  and  they  will  probably  be  condemned  to 
death.  But  the  Tsar  has  the  power  to  pardon  them, 
and  if  he  really  feels  the  tie  which  binds  him  to  the 
people  h6  must  do  so.  The  Russian  people  know 
nothing  of  two  truths.  Now,  God's  truth  says  :  '  Thou 
shalt  not  kill.'     Here  is  the  solemn  moment  of  justifica- 

1  J.   B.   Severac,  Vladimir  Soloviev.    Introduction  et  choix  de  textes, 
p.  14  (Paris). 


258  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

tion  or  condemnation.  Let  the  Tsar  show  that  he  is 
before  all  a  Christian.  But  if  he  transgresses  God's 
commandments,  if  he  enters  upon  this  sanguinary  path, 
then  the  Russian  people,  the  Christian  people,  can  no 
longer  follow  him." 

For  these  generous  words  Soloviev  was  dismissed 
from  his  post  as  Professor  of  Philosophy  in  the  Univer- 
sity of  Petersburg,  "  and  was  forced  thereafter  to  lead 
an  uncertain  and  wandering  life,  his  pen  providing  him 
with    a    living."  l 

I  cannot  here  expound  Soloviev's  philosophical  ideas 
in  all  their  bearings.  What  concerns  us  chiefly  is  his 
historical  and  religious  philosophy  and  his  opinions  on 
Russia's  place  in  the  world  and  her  relations  with  the 
^West.  But  I  must  not  omit  to  emphasize  the  fact  that 
with  Soloviev  the  problems  of  philosophy  in  general 
were  related  to  his  philosophy  of  history  and  his  ideas 
as  to  the  relations  between  Russia  and  Europe. 

"  The  necessary  and  most  recent  results  of  the 
development  of  Western  philosophy,"  he  writes  in  his 
work  on  The  Crisis  of  Western  Philosophy,  "  are  the 
affirmation,  in  the  shape  of  rational  knowledge,  of  the 
same  truths  which,  under  the  form  of  faith  and  spiritual 
contemplation,  were  affirmed  by  the  great  dogmas  of 
the  East  (of  the  East  of  antiquity  as  regards  a  portionj 
but  more  particularly  of  the  Christian  East).  Thus  the 
most  recent  philosophy,  with  the  logical  perfection  of 
its  Western  form,  tends  to  reunite  with  the  contempla- 
tion of  the  East.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  based  on  the 
data  of  positive  science  ;  on  the  other  it  joins  hands 
with  religion.  The  realization  of  this  universal  syn- 
thesis of  the  science  of  philosophy  and  religion  .  .  * 
should  be  the  supreme  aim  and  the  ultimate  result  of 
the   evolution   of    thought." 

We  see  that  for  Soloviev  even  a  purely  metaphysical 
problem  becomes  a  vital  question,  leading  him  to  seek 
for  the  grounds  of  a  reconciliation  between  the  East 
and  the  West. 

1  J.  B.  Severac,  op.  cit.  p.  12. 


IDEALS  259 

As  for  the  distinction  between  the  Eastern  mind  and 
the  Western  mind,  it  is  described  by  Soloviev  almost  in 
the  same  terms  as  those  employed  by  Tshaadaev,  who 
defined  it  as  follows  : — 

"  The  world  was  from  all  time  divided  into  two 
portions— the  East  and  the  West.  This  is  not  merely  a 
geographical  division.  .  .  .  We  have  here  two  prin- 
ciples, which  correspond  with  two  dynamic  forces  of 
nature,  two  ideals  which  embrace  the  entire  economy 
of  the  human  species.  In  the  East  it  is  by  concentrating 
itself,  by  recollecting  itself,  by  turning  inward  upon 
itself,  that  the  human  spirit  builds  itself  up  ;  but  in  the 
West  it  does  so  by  expanding  itself  externally,  by 
spreading  itself  in  every  direction,  by  struggling  against 
all  obstacles.  Society  naturally  constituted  itself  on 
these  primitive  data.  In  the  East,  thought  withdrew  into 
itself,  seeking  seclusion  and  repose;  it  hid  in  the  wilder- 
ness, and  allowed  the  social  power  to  become  the  master 
of  all  earthly  possessions  ;  while  in  the  West  thought 
projected  itself  in  all  directions  and  embraced  all  forms 
of  happiness,  founding  authority  upon  the  principle  of 
justice.  .  .  .  The  East  was  the  first-comer,  casting 
upon  the  earth  the  streams  of  light  that  came  from  the 
womb  of  its  solitary  meditation  ;  then  came  the  West, 
which,  with  its  immense  activity,  its  eager  speech,  its 
all-powerful  analysis,  engrossed  itself  in  its  labours, 
finished  what  the  East  had  commenced,  and  finally 
enveloped  it  in  its  vast  embrace."  1 

Soloviev  is  less  condemnatory  of  the  past  of  Russia 
than  Tshaadaev,  because  at  the  outset  of  his  philo- 
sophical and  literary  activity  Soloviev  came  under  the 
influence  of  the  Slavophiles.  At  this  period  he  did  not 
(as  did  Tshaadaev)  demand  the  submission  of  the  East 
to  the  West,  of  Russia  to  Europe,  of  Orthodoxy  to 
Catholicism  ;  he  spoke  of  a  "  synthesis,"  and  in  his 
lectures  on  The  Human  God  he  even  said  that  "  in 
the  history  of  Christianity  the  Church  of  the  East  repre- 
sented the  divine  principle  ;  the  West,  the  human  prin- 
1  P.  Tshaadaev,  (Euvres,  pp.  137-8. 


260  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

ciple.  Before  it  became  the  fecundating  principle  of 
the  Church,  reason  Was  forced'  to  divorce  itself  from 
her,  in  order  to  develop  all  its  forces  in  freedom.  Once 
the  human  principle  had  become  completely  indi- 
vidualized and  had  felt  the  weakness  of  this  isolation, 
it  was  able  freely  to  enter  into  conjunction  with  the 
divine  foundation  of  Christendom  preserved  in  the 
Church  of  the  East,  and,  by  this  free  conjunction,  tq 
give  birth  to  spiritual  humanity."  This  was  written  by 
Soloviev  in  1879,  but  ten  years  later  he  proclaimed  the 
supremacy  of  Catholicism  over  Orthodoxy,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  draw  all  the  practical  deductions  therefrom. 

Soloviev  asked  himself  this  question:  "  What  is 
Russia's  raison  d'etre  in  the  world?  "  He  distinguished 
three  principal  phases  of  Russian  history:  the  first 
phase  was  the  period  of  the  formation  of  a  great 
national  monarchy  ;  it  ended  under  the  Tsar  Alexei', 
the  father  of  Peter  the  Great.  Peter  opened  a  new  era 
in  the  history  of  Russia:  he  sent  Russia  to  school  with 
the  civilized  peoples  of  the  West,  in  order  that  she  might 
assimilate  their  knowledge  and  their  culture.  But  at 
the  close  of  this  second  phase  it  was  needful  to  know 
what  Russia  was  to  do  after  her  years  of  apprenticeship  ; 
for  "if  one  was  right  in  asking  :  '  What  is  barbarian 
Russia  to  do?  '  and  if  Peter  the  Great  replied  correctly 
by  answering  :  '  She  must  be  reformed  and  civilized  ' — 
then,"  says  Soloviev,  "  one  has  no  less  the  right  to  ask  : 
What  is  the  Russia  reformed  by  Peter  the  Great  to  do? 
What  is  the  aim  of  modern  Russia?  " 

Soloviev  is  satisfied  neither  by  the  reply  of  the  Slavo- 
philes nor  by  that  of  the  simple  positivist  "patriots." 
When  the  first  say  that  Orthodox  Russia  is  sufficient  to 
herself,  and  that  she  has  nothing  to  do  with  "  the  West, 
which  is  in  a  state  of  decadence,"  Soloviev  objects  that 
in  speaking  thus  they  reduce  the  final  aim  of  the  history 
and  the  raison  d'etre  of  the  human  species  to  the 
existence   of   a  single  nation. 

"  A  return  to  the  ancient  Judaism  is  proposed  to  us," 
says  Soloviev,   "with  this  difference:     that  the  excep- 


IDEALS  261 

tional  rdle  of  the  Jewish  people  in  the  schemes  of 
Providence  is  attested  by  the  word  of  God,  while  the 
exclusive  importance  of  Russia  cannot  be  affirmed  save 
on  the  word  of  certain  Russian  publicists,  whose  inspira- 
tion is  far  from  being  infallible."  ' 

As  for  the  "  more  prosaic  patriots,"  who,  "  in  reac- 
tion against  the  vague  and  sterile  poetry  of  Panslavism," 
have  asserted  that  it  is  not  indispensable  that  a  people 
should  bear  within  it  a  determining  idea,  and  that  one 
should  simply  strive  to  render  one's  country  wealthy  and 
powerful,  without  speculating  as  to  its  superior  purpose 
in  the  comity  of  nations,  Soloviev  believes  that  "  this 
amounts  to  saying  that  the  nations  live  by  daily  bread 
alone,  which  is  neither  true  nor  desirable."  Soloviev 
holds  that  "  the  historic  peoples  have  lived  not  only  for 
themselves  but  also  for  all  humanity,  purchasing  by 
their  immortal  labours  the  right  to  assert  their 
nationality."  "  One  does  not  ask  what  is  the  historic 
vision  of  the  Ashantis  or  the  Esquimaux,"  but  "  modern 
Russia,  which  for  two  centuries  has  not  ceased  to 
manifest  herself  on  the  stage  of  world-history,  did  not 
quite  know  whither  she  was  going  nor  what  she  in- 
tended to  do."  It  is  therefore  important  to  know  what 
idea  Russia  contributes  to  the  world  ;  what  she  has 
done  and  what  she  has  yet  to  do  for  the  good  of 
humanity   as    a   whole. 

Soloviev 's  reply  to  this  question  is  determined  by  his 
general  ideals.  A  convinced  and  sincere  Christian,  he 
believed  that  human  history  was  an  incarnation  of  "  the 
•Word,"  a  gradual  realization  of  the  Divine  Will  in  the 
life  of  men.  But  the  incarnation  of  the  Word  and  the 
realization  of  the  Divine  Will  does  not  come  about  by, 
the  intervention  of  a  single  man,  but  through  the  inter- 
mediation of  human  society,  which  should  be  a 
theocrac-y  ;  that  is,  it  should  be  based  on  the  religious 
principle  and  directed  by  an  ecclesiastical  authority. 

In  his   original  work   on   Russia   and  the   Universal 
Churchy  which  he  had  to  publish  in  French   (in   1889), 
'  V.  Soloviev,  La  Russie  et  I'Eglise  universelle  (Paris,  1883),  p.  3. 


262  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

as  in  Russia  the  ecclesiastical  censorship  would  not  have 
tolerated  the  publication  of  a  book  so  imbued  with 
Catholic  ideals,  Soloviev  compares  the  two  existing 
Christian  Churches,  and  likens  them  to  two  saints  of 
whom  a  charming  Russian  folk-tale  speaks. 

These  two  saints — St.  Nicholas  and  St.  Cassien — who 
were  sent  from  Paradise  to  visit  earth,  saw  one  day  upon 
their  path  a  poor  peasant,  whose  cart,  loaded  with  hay, 
was  deeply  mired,  and  who  was  making  fruitless  efforts 
to  urge  his  horse  onward, 

"  Let  us  give  a  hand  to  this  worthy  man,"  said  St. 
Nicholas . 

"  I  would  rather  not,"  replied  St.  Cassien.  m  I  should 
be  afraid  of  soiling  my  chlamys." 

*'  Then  wait  for  me,  or  else  go  thy  ways  alone,"  said 
St.  Nicholas,  and,  fearlessly  plunging  into  the  mud,  he 
vigorously  assisted  the  peasant  to  drag  his  cart  from  the 
slough . 

(When  the  task  was  completed  St.  Nicholas  rejoined 
his  companion.  He  was  covered  with  mire,  and  his 
chlamys,  rent  and  soiled,  was  like  a  poor  man's  blouse. 
Great  was  the  surprise  of  St.  Peter  to  see  him  arrive  in 
this  condition  at  the  gate  of  Paradise. 

*'  Well,  what  has  made  such  a  sight  of  you?  " 
inquired   St.    Peter. 

St.  Nicholas  related  what  had  happened. 

"And  you,"  asked  St.  Peter  of  St.  Cassien,  "  wefe 
you  not  with  him  in  this  affair?  " 

"  Yes,  but  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  meddling 
with  what  does  not  concern  me,  and,  above  all,  I  did 
not  wish  to  soil  the  immaculate  whiteness  of  my 
chlamys." 

"Well/  well!"  said  Peter,  "as  for  you,  St. 
Nicholas,  because  you  were  not  afraid  to  dirty  yourself 
in  helping  your  neighbour  out  of  his  trouble,  you 
shall  henceforth  be  feted  twice  a  year,  and  you  will  be 
regarded  as  the  greatest  of  the  saints  after  me  by  all 
the  peasants  of  Russia.  And  you,  St.  Cassien,  you  may 
content  yourself  with  the  pleasure  of  having  an  immacu- 


fIDEALS  263 

late  chlamys:  you  will  have  your  festival  only  in  Leap 
Year — only  once  in  four  years."  " 

"  The  Oriental  prays  ;  the  Occidental  prays  and 
works.  Which  of  the  two  is  right?  "  asks  Soloviev, 
and  replies  as  follows  : — 

"  Jesus  Christ  established  His  visible  Church  not  only 
that  it  might  contemplate  heaven,  but  also  that  it  might 
labour  on  earth  and  fight  against  the  gates  of  hell.  He 
sent  His  apostles  not  into  solitude  and  the  wilderness, 
but  into  the  world,  to  conquer  it  and  to  subject  it  to  the 
kingdom  which  is  not  of  this  world  ;  and  He  recom- 
mended them  to  be  not  only  as  meek  as  doves,  but  also 
as  wise  as   serpents."  2 

From  this  point  of  view  Soloviev  believes  that 
although  in  the  East  there  is  a  "  Church  which  prays," 
there  is  not  a  "  Church  which  acts,"  and  which  labours 
to  reform  the  whole  social  life  of  the  nations  according 
to  "the  Christian  ideal."  To  accomplish  the  true  will 
of  Christ,  the  Eastern  Church  must  frankly  accept 
Catholicism'  as  its  companion  and  its  guide  on  its 
terrestrial   journey. 

Soloviev  very  severely  criticizes  the  present  position 
of  the  Orthodox  Church,  in  which,  he  says,  there  is 
no  truly  spiritual  government.  The  Orthodox  Church 
is  in  complete  dependence  upon  the  power  of  the  State, 
and,  in  the  words  of  the  Slavophile  Ivan  Aksakov, 
cited  by  Soloviev,  it  "  presents  the  appearance  of  a 
sort  of  bureau  or  colossal  chancellery,  which  applies 
to  the  office  of  the  shepherd  of  Christ's  flock  all  the 
methods  of  the  German  bureaucracy,  with  all  the  official 
falsity  which  is  inherent  in  them.  .  .  .  The  ecclesias- 
tical government  is  organized  like  a  secular  depart- 
mental administration.  .  .  .  The  spiritual  sword — 
speech — is  replaced  by  the  sword  of  the  State,  and 
near  the;  precincts  of  the  Church,  instead  of  the  angels 

1  The  Orthodox  Church  celebrates  the  feast  of  St.  Nicholas  on  the 
6th  of  May  and  the  6th  of  December,  and  the  feast  of  St.  Cassien  on 
the  29th  of  February. 

■  Soloviev,  La  Russic  et  TEglise  universelle  (Paris,  1889),  p.  4. 


264  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

of  God,  we  see  gendarmes  and  police  inspectors — those 
guardians  of  the  Orthodox  dogmas,  those  directors  of 
our  conscience."  * 

For  Soloviev  the  situation  of  the  Church  was  incom- 
patible with  its  spiritual  dignity,  its  divine  origin,  and 
its  universal  mission.  But  there  was  only  one  means 
by  which  the  Orthodox  Church  could  escape  from  this 
situation  ;  this  was  to  unite  with  the  Catholic  Church. 
The  popular  basis  of  faith  is  identical  in  Orthodoxy  and 
Catholicism.  From  the  evangelical  and  historical  point 
of  view  the  Catholic  Church  should  be  the  guide.  By 
analysing  at  length  the  texts  of  the  Gospel,  the  deliber- 
ations of  the  Conclaves,  etc.,  Soloviev  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  that  the  Roman  Papacy  was  truly  charged 
by  Christ  to  represent  Him  on  earth,  and  as  "  to  Christ, 
the  one  Being,  the  centre  of  all  beings,  the  Church 
should  correspond,  a  collectivity  aspiring  to  perfect 
unity,"  so  Orthodoxy  should  be  reconciled  with  Catholi- 
cism and  submit  itself  to  the  power  of  the  Pope.  In 
his  "  spiritual  fatherhood  "  the  unity  of  the  human 
species  will  be  realized.  We  shall  then  accomplish 
the  will  of  Christ,  who  "  in  uniting  all  His  disciples 
in  one  sole  communion  did  not  falter  before  national 
divisions.  He  extended  His  fraternity  over  all  the 
nations.  And  if  this  mysterious  communion  of  the 
Divine  Body  is  true  and  actual,  we,  in  partaking  of 
it,  do  truly  become  brothers,  without  any  distinction  of 
race  or  nationality."  2 

Thus,  by  re-uniting  itself  with  Catholicism,  the 
Orthodox  Church  and  all  Russia  with  it  would  win 
the  possibility  of  participating  in  the  great  work  of 
11  the  incarnation  of  the  Word,"  the  perfecting  of  human 
nature  and  society. 

1  Ivan  Aksakov,  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  84.  Soloviev  cites  from  the  same 
author  the  story  of  the  shoulder-knots  of  a  general's  aide-de-camp, 
with  which  Mgr.  Irinee,  Archbishop  of  Pskov,  and  a  member  of  the 
Holy  Synod,  was  decorated  under  Paul  I,  which  are  highly  significant 
of  the  relations  between  Church  and  State  in  Russia. 

1  Soloviev,  op.  cit.  p.  329. 


IDEALS  265 

Herzen  had  said  of  Tshaadaev  that  in  him  was  in- 
carnated "  the  reasonable  and  social  aspect  of  Catholi- 
cism." One  might  also  say  this  of  Solovicv.  His 
religious  faith,  his  mysticism  even,  are  directed  toward 
the  problem  of  the  welfare  and  the  happiness  of  man- 
kind. 

But  neither  Tshaadaev  nor  Soloviev,  despite  all  the 
power  of  their  original  minds,  was  able  to  control  and 
master  Russian  thought,  which  remained,  in  general,  far 
removed  from  the  path  followed  by  these  two  remark- 
able philosophers,  who  were  all  their  lives  tormented 
by  the  great  problem  of  the  relations  between  "  the 
Orient  and  the  Occident,"  between  Russia  and  Europe, 
seeking  to  solve  it  by  the  religious  unity  of  one  and 
the  other. 


CHAPTER    V 

I.  The  idealist  philosophy  of  Germany — Hegelianism.  II.  Bielinsky 
— The  influence  of  Schelling  and  Fichte.  III.  Bielinsky,  a  Hegelian 
of  the  "Right"  and  a  conservative — His  antipathy  for  French 
ideals.  IV.  His  conversion — French  influences — Social  aspira- 
tions. 

I 

A  French  poet  has  said  that  when  one  has  no  support 
in  heaven,  one  turns  one's  eyes  toward  the  earth.  This 
aphorism  is  correct  in  the  inverse  sense  also.  .When 
one  finds  no  support  on  earth  one  turns  to  heaven  again. 
The  intellectual  life  of  Russia  proves  this  most  emphati- 
cally. 

In  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  after 
the  Decembrist  movement  had  been  suppressed,  when 
political  and  concrete  aspirations  had  been  violently 
stifled,  a  period  of  abstract  and  nebulous  speculation 
set  in.  This  was  the  period  of  the  Russian  hegelianstvo, 
that  is,  of  the  cult  of  Hegel  and  the  idealistic  German 
philosophy  in  general.  In  the  place  of  the  late  secret 
political  societies  which  discussed  the  French,  British, 
American,  and  Spanish  constitutions,  philosophic 
"  clubs  "  were  formed,  whose  members  passed  their 
time  in  discussing  the  most  complex  problems  of  meta- 
physics. 

"  There  is  not  a  single  paragraph  in  all  the  three 
parts  of  the  Logic  of  Hegel,  in  the  two  parts  of  his 
Aisthetic,  or  in  his  Encyclopedia,  etc.,  which  has  not 
for  some  nights  been  the  subject  of  furious  discussion. 
People  who  regarded  one  another  with  affection  would 
have  nothing  to  do  with  one  another  for  weeks  after 

266 


IDEALS  267 

a  disagreement  respecting  the  definition  of  '  the  inter- 
cepting mind,'   and   would    regard  opinions   concerning 

I  the  absolute  personality  '  and  its  autonomous  existence 
as  personal  insults.  All  the  most  insignificant  pamphlets 
which  appeared  in  Berlin  or  the  various  provincial 
cities  of  Germany,  which  dealt  with  German  philosophy 
and  contained  even  the  merest  mention  of  Hegel,  were 
bought  and  read  until  in  a  few  days  they  were  torn  and 
tattered  and  falling  to  pieces." 

Such  is  the  artistic  description  of  life  in  these  philo- 
sophical clubs  as  given  by  Herzen,  who  himself  entered 
into  it  heart  and  soul. 

The  influence  of  the  idealistic  philosophy  of  Germany 
was  very  great,  and  played  a  very  important  part  in 
the  spiritual  history  of  Russian  society.  Its  positive 
aspect  consisted  of  the  fact  that  it  developed,  in  its 
Russian  adepts,  a  love  of  abstract  thought  and  a  habit 
of  logical  argument.  Certain  of  these  Russian  disciples 
of  the  German  school  of  philosophy  became  absolute 
"  monstrosities  in  their  terse  dialectic  and  their  luminous 
perception  of  ideas  in  their  essence  "  (this  was 
Proudhon's    opinion    of     Bakunin).        This    habit     of 

II  dialectic  "  and  argument  liberated  the  Russian  youth 
of  the  time  from  many  prejudices,  and  from  docile 
submission  to  the  naive  beliefs  of  their  fathers.  Re- 
serving for  man  a  supreme  position  in  the  system  of 
the  world  ("  man  is  the  completion  of  nature  "),  German 
idealism  fortified  their   sense  of  human  dignity. 

But  German  philosophy  had  also  its  negative  and 
perilous  aspects.  Fichte,  representing  the  "  external 
world  "  as  the  product  of  the  human  mind,  compelled  his 
Russian  disciples  toward  an  exaggerated  subjectivism, 
toward  the  concentration  of  all  interests  in  their  ego, 
and  toward  the  neglect  of  real  life.  Schelling,  who 
completed  Fichte's  theory  by  the  addition  of  the  poetic 
element,  and  who  declared  that  nature  was  the  work 
of  the  artistic  and  creative  imagination  of  man,  impelled 
them  toward  an  exaggerated  "  asstheticism."  Even 
Hegel,  whose  dialectic  and  philosophy  of  history  were, 


268  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

for  Herzen  and  his  friends,  an  "  algebra  of  revolution," 
concealed,  in  his  abstract  formulae,  great  dangers  for 
the  Russian  mind,  as  we  shall  see  later  on. 

'We  must  here  add  that  an  excessive  enthusiasm  for 
German  metaphysics  was  often,  in  Russia,  accompanied 
by  an  aversion  for  "  French  ideas."  Happily,  this 
aversion  was  only  ephemeral,  and  it  was  precisely  these 
"  French  ideas  "  which  paralysed  the  action  of  the  evil 
aspects  of  the  influence  of  German  philosophy,  and 
permitted  the  Russian  intellectuals  to  emerge  from  its 
labyrinth  without  the  loss  of  their  best  human  feelings. 

II 

The  'thirties  and  'forties  of  the  nineteenth  century 
were  very  rich  in  men  and  in  ideas.  All  the  chief 
literary  and  ideological  movements  of  the  century  had 
their  roots  in  these  years.  The  period  is  adorned  by 
a  whole  Pleiad  of  illustrious  names  ;  the  Slavophiles, 
Khomiakov,  the  brothers  Kireevsky,  and  the  brothers 
Aksakov  ;  the  zapadnikt,  Granovsky,  Bielinsky,  Herzen, 
Ogariov,  Stankievitsh,  and  Botkin.  Bielinsky  was 
influenced  by  the  destructive  genius  of  the  impassioned 
philosophic  and  aesthetic  romanticism  of  Schelling.  In 
an  article  entitled  Literary  Musings  (or  Elegy)  he 
reproduces,  almost  word  for  word,  the  "  definitions  " 
of  Schelling,  and  speaks  of  "  the  divine  world,  immense 
and  beautiful,  which  is  nothing  more  than  the  breath 
of  a  unique  and  eternal  idea  (of  the  thought  of  the 
unique  and  eternal  God),  and  which  manifests  itself 
in  innumerable  forms,  as  a  great  spectacle  of  the  abso- 
lute unity  in  an  illimitable  variety.  Only  the  enkindled 
sentiment  of  a  mortal  can  conceive,  in  its  moments  of 
clairvoyance,  how  great  is  the  body  of  this  soul  of 
the  Universe,  whose  heart  is  fashioned  of  stupendous 
suns,  whose  veins  are  Milky  Ways,  and  whose  blood 
is  the  pure  ether."  Only  art  and  poetry  can  seize  the 
essential  of  this  universal  life  ;  art,  for  Bielinsky,  is 
the  expression  of  the  great  idea  of  the  Universe  in  its 
infinitely  variable   manifestations. 


IDEALS  269 

Bakunin  was  formed  by  this  period.  It  also  gave 
birth  to  the  Russian  novel,  and  to  that  literary  criticism 
which  for  a  long  time  fulfilled  the  part  of  a  guide, 
not  only  in  the  province  of  literary  taste,  but  also  in 
that  of  the  social  and  moral  life  of  the  Russian 
intellectuals. 

All  those  who  wish  to  obtain  a  real  knowledge  of 
this  astonishing  period  should  begin  with  a  thorough 
study  of  the  ideas  and  the  works  of  Vissarion  Bielinsky. 
Such  a  study  will  be  of  the  greatest  interest  to  those 
who  wish  to  understand  the  formation  of  the  Occi- 
dentalist  and  Slavophile  movements  and  the  nature  of 
those  European  influences  which  have  affected  the 
Russian  mind. 

Endowed  with  an  unusually  active  mind,  and  bringing 
to  the  expression  of  his  thoughts  and  feelings  a  remark- 
able sincerity,  sensitive  in  the  extreme  to  all  impres- 
sions and  impulses,  Vissarion  the  Impetuous,  as  his 
friends  used  to  call  him,  reflected  in  his  spiritual  de- 
velopment and  in  his  works  the  principal  factors  of  the 
intellectual  life  of  the  period  between   1830  and   1850. 

At  the  outset  Bielinsky  was  a  disciple  of  Schelling. 
^Esthetic  pleasure,  in  his  opinion,  consists  of  "  a 
momentary  oblivion  of  our  ego  in  a  keen  sympathy 
with  the  universal  life." 

The  history  of  humanity  is  also  a  series  of  manifes- 
tations of  the  same  divine  idea,  and  "  each  people  fills, 
in  the  great  family  of  the  human  race,  its  own  place, 
which  is  appointed  by  Providence."  This  historical 
and  national  romanticism  has  not,  in  Bielinsky's  works, 
a  democratic  or  popular  character  :  M  Our  national 
physiognomy  is  best  preserved  in  the  lower  strata  of 
the  population,  but  the  superior  life  of  the  people  is 
concentrated  principally  in  the  higher  strata."  It  was 
to  these-  higher  strata  that  Bielinsky  looked  for  all 
progress  in  Russia,  and  he  already  saw  signs  of  such 
progress  in  the  "  enlightened  activity  of  the  well-known 
dignitaries,  the  advisers  of  the  Tsar  in  the  difficult 
matter  of  the  administration,"  who  entered  "  the  temples 


270  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

of  Russian  learning,"  pointing  out  to  the  youth  of 
Russia  "  the  path  leading  to  civilization,  based  on 
orthodoxy,  autocracy,  and  the  national  spirit  "  ;  in  "  the 
grateful  nobility,"  who  gave  its  children  "  a  solid  edu- 
cation "  ;  in  the  "  class  of  merchants,"  who  "  were 
rapidly  learning  "  ;  in  "  our  clergy,"  who  "  took  an 
active  part  in  the  holy  work  of  national  education." 

iWith  the  same  optimism  Bielinsky  considers  the  past 
of  the  Russian  people,  and  finds  it  full  of  favourable 
phenomena.  As  for  Russian  literature,  a  consideration 
of  which  forms  the  principal  subject  of  the  Elegy,  he 
condemns  all  its  satyric  or  pessimistic  works,  pro- 
nouncing in  favour  of  "  pure  art,"  which  is  equivalent  to 
saying  that  he  demolishes  the  principal  monuments  of 
the  Russian  national  genius. 

This  exaggerated  indulgence  and  this  desire  to  see 
in  Russia  nothing  but  what  was  good  was  obviously 
antagonistic  to  the  reality.  It  is  enough  to  say  that 
the  same  Count  Ouvarov,  Minister  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion, who  was  the  "  well-known  dignitary  "  mentioned 
by  Bielinsky,  expressed  during  a  visit  to  "  the  temple 
of  learning,"  namely,  the  University  of  Moscow,  the 
desire  "  that  Russian  literature  should  finally  cease  to 
exist,"  because  he  regarded  it  as  a  vehicle  for  liberal 
ideas  ;  he  also  believed  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
Government  "  to  multiply  spiritual  barriers  wherever 
that  is  possible." 

The  striking  contradiction  between  the  "  literary 
musings  "  and  the  reality  could  not  fail  to  distress 
Bielinsky 's  mind.  He  sought  a  remedy,  or  rather  a 
spiritual  asylum,  in  Fichte.  Under  the  influence  of 
his  friend,  Mikail  Bakunin,  who  later  became  the  father 
of  anarchism,  Bielinsky  absorbed  the  idealism'  of  Fichte. 

In  a  letter  to  Bakunin  he  writes  that  "  the  ideal 
life  and  real  life  were  always  divided  in  his  conceptions," 
but  that,  enlightened  by  Fichte,  he  understood  that  "the 
ideal  life  is  precisely  the  real  life,  positive  and  concrete, 
while  what  one  calls  real  life  is  only  a  negation,  a 
phantom,    a    nothing,    a    futility."      In    another    letter 


IDEALS  271 

(1837)  Bielinsky  says  that  "apart  from  thought  all 
is  a  dream,  phantasmal  j  thought  alone  is  substantial 
and  real.  What  are  you  yourself?  A  thought  clad 
in  flesh  .  .  .  which  is  the  more  important  :  an  idea 
or  a  phenomenon,  a  soul  or  a  body?  Is  the  idea  the 
result  of  the  phenomenon,  or  the  phenomenon  the  result 
of  the  idea?  Without  doubt  the  phenomenon  is  the 
result  of  the  idea." 

Putting  these  theories  into  practice,  Bielinsky  "  fled 
to  his  books  at  the  top  of  his  speed,"  as  he  jestingly 
observed  later,  seeking  to  seclude  himself  in  the 
44  ivory  tower  "  of  philosophy. 

44  Submerge  yourself,  hide  yourself  in  science  and 
art,"  he  advises  one  of  his  friends.  4'  Do  not  seek 
God  in  the  temples  created  by  man,  but  seek  Him 
rather  in  your  heart.  .  .  .  Philosophy — that  is  what 
should  be  the  object  of  your  activities.  .  .  .  Philo- 
sophy alone  will  give  peace  and  harmony  to  your  mind. 
.  .  .  You  will  not  be  in  the  world,  but  the  world  will 
be  in  you.  .  .  .  Above  all,  leave  politics  alone  and 
beware  of  any  political  influence  upon  your  judgment. 
Politics,  with  us  in  Russia,  has  no  meaning,  and  only 
empty  heads  can  bother  themselves  with  it." 

This  determined  external  indifference  concealed,  as 
does  all  systematic  indifference,  a  conservative 
tendency. 

44  Russia  is  still  in  her  infancy,"  he  writes  later  on. 
44  To  give  liberty  to  a  child  is  to  destroy  it.  To 
give  liberty  to  Russia,  in  her  present  state,  is  to  destroy 
her.  The  liberated  Russian  people  would  resort,  not 
to  the  Parliament,  but  to  the  drink-shop.  All  Russia's 
hope  lies  in  education,  not  in  upheavals,  revolutions, 
and   constitutions." 

Russian  conservatism  is  always  hostile  to  France. 
Bielinsky"  forms  no   exception  to  this   rule. 

44  There  have  been  two  revolutions  in  France,"  he 
wrote  (in  1837)  ;  "their  result  was  a  constitution, 
and  behold  !  In  constitutional  France  there  is  much 
less  liberty  of  thought  than  in  autocratic  Prussia.     And 


272  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

this  is  because  constitutional  liberty  is  a  conventional 
liberty,  while  the  veritable  and  absolute  liberty  is 
realized  in  the  State  in  proportion  to  the  success  of 
education,  based  on  philosophy,  on  a  speculative  and 
not  on   an    empirical   philosophy." 

Further  on   Bielinsky   condemns   French   thought   in 
the  following  terms  : — 

"  Down  with  politics  I  Long  live  science  !  In 
France,  science,  and  art,  and  religion  have  become,  or, 
to  tell  the  truth,  have  always  been,  the  instruments  of 
politics  ;  this  is  why  there  is  neither  art  nor  science 
nor  religion  in  France.  Avoid  French  science  then, 
and  above  all  French  philosophy  ;  fear  them  even  more 
than  French  politics.  .  .  .  The  French  deduce  every- 
thing from  the  present  state  of  society  ;  this  is  why 
they  have  no  eternal  verities.  ...  A  philosophy  based 
on  experience  is  nonsense.  The  French  of  to-day  have 
mastered  the  Germans,  but  they  do  not  understand 
them,  because  a  Frenchman  can  never  attain  to  uni- 
versality. .  .  .  The  devil  fly  away  with  the  French  I 
Their  activities  have  never  brought  us  anything  but 
evil.  We  have  imitated  their  literature,  and  we  have 
killed  our  own.  .  ,.  .  Germany  is  the  Jerusalem  of 
modern  humanity.  .  .  .  To  youthful  and  virgin  Russia, 
Germany  must  transmit  her  family  life,  her  social 
virtues,  and  her  philosophy,  which  embraces  the 
universe.  .  .  .  We  must  take  the  initiative  in  this  union 
with  Germany." 

Bielinsky,  in  his  German ophilia  and  Gallophobia,  went 
so  far  as  to  praise  the  reactionary  government  of 
Nicolas  J,  because  it  allowed  "  the  products  of 
German  thought  "  to  penetrate  Russia,  while  it  pro- 
scribed  ideas   of    French  origin. 

Ill 

The  next  phase  in  the  mental  development  of 
Bielinsky  was  dominated  by  the  philosophy  of  Hegel, 
or,  more  precisely,  by  a  one-sided  and  erroneous  inter- 
pretation of   a  few  propositions  of   Hegel's.      "  A  new 


IDEALS  273 

world  is  vouchsafed  to  us,"  wrote  Bielinsky,  describing 
the  impression  produced  upon  him  by  Hegelianism. 
'  Might  is  right,  and  right  is  might.  No,  I  cannot 
describe  to  you  the  feeling  with  which  I  heard  these 
words— it  was  a  liberation.  I  understood  the  fall  of 
kingdoms,  the  legality  of  the  actions  of  conquerors  ; 
I  understood  that  there  was  no  barbarous  material 
force,  no  domination  by  the  sword  and  the  bayonet, 
that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  despotism.  And  lo, 
the  mission  of  the  teacher  of  the  human  race,  the 
mission  which  I  undertook  in  respect  of  my  native 
land,  appeared  in  a  new  light.  .  ,  .  The  word  reality 
has  for  me  become  synonymous  with  the  word  God. 
.  .  .  Blessed  is  that  word  which  is  able  to  illumine  the 
very  laboratory  of   the  idea  of  the  infinite  !  " 

As  we  see,  Bielinsky  is  always  tormented  by  the 
same  contradiction  :  the  contradiction  between  the  idea 
and  the  reality.  And  he  seeks  to  reconcile  the  two 
by  the  law  of  necessity  and  the  lawfulness  of  all  that 
exists.  We  must  admit  that  the  historic  philosophy 
of  Hegel  might  be  interpreted  in  the  sense  which 
Bielinsky  attributed  to  it.  Hegel  says  that  "  all  that 
is  real  is  reasonable,  and  all  that  is  reasonable  is  real." 
tWhich  is  to  say.  that  all  that  exists  may  be  explained 
by  the  reason,  that  is,  that  it  has  reasonable  causes. 
And,  on  the  contrary,  that  which  reason  foresees  as  a 
logical  necessity  of  future  evolution  is  real,  that  is 
to  say,  will  be  realized  in  the  future.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  results  that  all  that  exists  to-day  may  and  must 
perish  to  give  life  to  something  new.  Everything  now 
existing  includes  the  germ  of  something  new  ;  every 
thesis  supposes  an  antithesis.  . 

Bielinsky 's  error  was  this  :  he  perceived  only  a  single 
aspect  of  the  Hegelian  formula  ;  "all  that  is  real  is 
reasonable."  And  this  one-sided  conception  led  him 
logically  to  justify  the  existing  order  of  things  as 
"necessary"  and  "lawful."  This  error  was  all  the 
more  explicable  in  that  Hegel  himself  gave  this  inter- 
pretation of  his  historical  philosophy  (officially  at  least), 

18 


274  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

and  approved   of   the   Prussian   Government   as   being 
"  reasonable." 

It  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  Bielinsky  should 
have  tripped  over  the  same  stumbling-block.  A 
sincere,  ardent  thinker,  who  "  did  not  change  colour 
over  the  most  formidable  deductions,"  Bielinsky  en- 
deavoured to  reconcile  himself  entirely  with  real  life, 
with  all  its  violence  and  injustice  and  its  viileness,  with 
the  "  bayonet,"  the  "  sword,"  and  the  "  laboratory," 
and  to  show  that  all  that  existed  in  Russia  was 
"  reasonable."  He  had  the  courage  not  to  keep  his 
opinions  for  his  own  personal  consumption  ;  he  ex- 
pounded them  in  a  series  of  startling  articles.  In  one 
of  these  articles — which  spoke  of  the  anniversary  of 
the  battle  of  Borodino — Bielinsky  represented  the 
history  of  the  Russian  State  as  the  manifestation  of  the 
"  mysterious  substance  "  of  the  "  kingdom  of  the 
Infinite."  The  State  is  not  a  human  institution,  but 
a  phenomenon  of  divine  origin.  The  autocratic  power 
is  not  derived  from  election  or  a  contract  (as  a  little 
liberal  French  abbe  would  say).  This  power,  "in- 
cluding in  itself  all  individual  wills,"  is  "  a  transforma- 
tion of  the  monarchy  of  the  eternal  reason."  The  very 
name  of  monarch  is  a  mystic  and  sacred  thing.  The 
needs  and  desires  of  individuals  must  not  be  taken  into 
consideration,  because  "  an  objective  world  should 
vanquish  a  subjective  world."  All  is  reasonable  and 
necessary.  Those  who  do  not  think  so  and  revolt 
against  suffering  and  injustice  are  only  "  voluntary 
martyrs  "  and  insane.  A  poet  or  an  artist  should  not 
concern  himself  with  the  contemporary  world,  which 
is  only  "  a  beginning  without  middle  and  without  end." 
The  moralists  are  "  vampires  who  kill  life  by  the  chill 
of  their  touch,  and  seek  to  bind  the  Infinite  within 
the  narrow  limits  of  their  reasoned  but  unreasonable 
definitions." 

French  literature,  being  far  from  this  almost  super- 
human detachment,  is  violently  attacked  by  Bielinsky. 
The    works    of    Racine    and    Moliere    consist,    for    him, 


IDEALS  275 

merely  of  "insipid  statements  in  insipid  verse." 
Voltaire  is  "an  impudent  scoffer  at  all  things  which 
humanity  holds  sacred  and  holy."  Victor  Hugo  and 
Eugene  Sue  are  "  worshippers  of  the  violence  of  bestial 
passions,"  "  butchers  who  pose  as  tragedians  and 
romance- writers."  George  Sand  thinks  of  nothing  but 
introducing,  into  literature,  the  sectarian  ideas  of  Saint- 
Simonism,  which  lead  us  toward  the  annihilation  of  the 
holy  ties  of  marriage,  kinship,  and  the  family,"  and 
transform  the  State  first  "  into  the  scene  of  a  bestial 
and  impudent  orgy,  then  into  a  phantom,  formed  of 
idle  words." 

It  should  be  noted  that  at  this  period  Bielinsky  had 
a  great  antipathy  not  only  for  French  writers,  but 
also  for  such  of  the  German  writers  as  displayed  the 
same  tendency  toward  protest  and  "  moralism."  Later 
he  said  of  Schiller,  the  German  Hugo  :— 

'  Schiller  was  then  my  personal  enemy  ;  and  I  had 
the  greatest  difficulty  in  restraining  my  hatred  for  him 
and  to  keep  within  the  limits  of  the  conventions  to 
which  I  was  able  to  subdue  myself.  Why  this  hatred? 
Because  of  his  moral  and  subjective  point  of  view  ; 
because  of  his  horrible  ideal  of  duty  ;  because  of 
his  abstract  heroism  ;  because  of  his  conflict  with 
reality,  because  of  all  the  suffering  which  the  mention 
of  his  name  caused  me." 

IVj 

The  conservative  and  almost  servile  ideas  professed 
by  Bielinsky  greatly  displeased  the  lettered  youth  of 
Moscow  ;  and  some  of  his  friends  broke  with  him, 
Herzen  being  one  of  them.  Happily  for  Bielinsky 
and  Russian  thought,  the  period  of  his  "  reconcilia- 
tion "  with  reality,  or  rather  his  resignation,  was  not  a 
lengthy  one. 

At  the  end  of  1839  Bielinsky,  having  left  Moscow 
to  live  in  Petersburg,  was  then  able  to  observe  the 
worst  aspects  of  "  Russian  reality,"  due  to  the 
"militarized     Byzantism "     of     Nicolas     I.      And     by 


276  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

November  1839  he  was  writing  to  his  friend  Botkin  : 
"  Piter  [the  popular  name  for  Petersburg]  has  an 
extraordinary  gift  of  offending  anything  holy  there  is 
in  a  man."  And  he  added  :  "  The  more  I  see  and 
the  more  I  think,  the  stronger  and  more  intimate  my 
love  for  Russia  becomes  ;  but  I  am'  beginning  to  under- 
stand that  my  affection  for  Russia  is  for  its  essence, 
and  its  form  or  method  of  expression  is  driving  me 
to  despair  ;  it  is  filthy,  disgusting,  repulsive,  and  in- 
human." Early  in  the  following  year  he  wrote  to  the 
same  friend  that  "  Petersburg  was  for  him1  a  horrible 
rock  on  which  his  simplicity  ran  aground."  He  con- 
sidered that  "  this  was  necessary."  He  suffered  at 
the  rupture  with  those  who  were  revolted  by  his  theory 
of  reconciliation,  and  he  denied  his  abstract  aspirations, 
his  "  life  in  books."  "  The  French  disgust  me  as 
formerly,"  he  wrote,  "  but  the  social  idea  has  taken 
a  firmer  hold  of  me.  .  .  .  All  that  one  sees  revolts 
the  mind,  offends  the  feelings.  .  .  .  No,  the  devil  take 
all  aspirations  and  all  superior  aims.  We  are  living 
in  a  terrible  period;  it  is  our  destiny  to  sacrifice  our 
personal  interests  ;  we  have  to  suffer  so  that  our  grand- 
children  may    live    better." 

In  a  letter  to  K.  Aksakov,  Bielinsky  declared  [(in 
June  1840)  that  "scientific  reality  is  the  reality  of 
life  " — which  must  be  the  basis  of  science.  He  re- 
nounced his  recent  ideas  concerning  Russia  and  her 
past  ;  he  declared  that  "  he  would  pay  a  great  price 
for  the  power  to  destroy  what  he  had  written  on  those 
subjects." 

"  China  is  an  abhorrent  State  ;  but  still  more 
repugnant  is  the  State  in  which  exist  abundant  elements 
of  life,  but  which  is  oppressed  by  chains  of  iron." 
Shortly  after  this  he  broke  finally  with  all  his  old 
philosophy. 

*  I  curse  my  abominable  .leaning  toward  reconciliation 
with  the  abominable  reality  !  Long  live  the  great 
Schiller,  the  noble  advocate  of  humanity,  the  shining 
star   of    salvation,    who    emancipated   society   from   its 


IDEALS  277 

sanguinary  and  traditional  prejudices  !  .  .  .  The  human 
personality  is  for  me,  to-day,  more  than  history.  .  .  . 
I  will  not  reconcile  myself  to  the  insipid  reality.  .  .  . 
Reality  is  an  executioner.  .  .  .  Negation  constitutes 
our  historic  right  .  .  .  and  without  it  the  whole  history 
of  humanity  would  become  a  stagnant  and  foetid  pool. 
.  .  .  And  the  enormities  which  I  used  to  vomit  in 
my  rage  against  the  French,  that  vigorous,  generous 
nation,  which  sheds  its  blood  for  the  most  sacred  rights' 
of  humanity.  ...  Of  course,  the  French  do  not  under- 
stand the  absolute  in  art,  nor  in  religion,  nor  in  science, 
and  it  is  not  their  part  to  do  so.  Germany  is  a  nation 
of  the  absolute,  but  a  shameful  State.  ...  Of  course, 
in  France  there  are  many  brawlers  and  phrase-makers, 
but  in  Germany  there  are  many  hofrdthe,  philistines, 
pork-butchers,  and  other  reptiles."  And  Bielinsky 
rejoices  because  "the  Germans  have  at  last  divined 
what  the  French  are,"  and  because,  as  the  fruit  of 
French  ideas,  "  there  has  appeared  in  their  country 
that  noble  company  of  enthusiasts  of  liberty  known 
as  '  Young  Germany,'  at  the  head  of  which  is  Heine, 
such  a   wonderful  and  beautiful   personality." 

In  1 841  Bielinsky  amended  his  Hegelianism.  "I 
have  been  suspecting  for  a  long  time  that  Hegel's 
philosophy  is  only  a  factor,  however  great  ;  but  the 
absolute  character  of  his  deductions  is  worth  nothing  ; 
it  would  be  better  to  die  than  to  adopt  them.  .  .  . 
The  subjective,  in  Hegel,  is  not  an  end  in  itself,  but 
a  temporary  means  of  manifesting  the  objective,  and 
this  objective  appears,  in  him,  in  its  relations  to  the 
subjective,  as  a  sort  of  Moloch,  for  after  a  brief  adhesion 
he  discards  it  like  an  old  pair  of  breeches.  .  .  .  The 
fate  of  the  subjective,  of  the  individual,  of  personality, 
is,  for  me,  more  important  than  the  destiny  of  the 
Universe  and  the  good  health  of  the  Chinese  Emperor 
— that  is  to  say,  of  the  Hegelian  Allgemeinheit.  .  .  . 
I  thank  you  profusely,  Yegor  Fedorovitch,"  continues 
Bielinsky  in  a  bantering  apostrophe  to  Hegel.  "  I 
salute  your  philosopher's  cap,  but  with  all  the  esteem 


278  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

befitting  your  Philistine  philosophy  I  have  the  honour 
to  inform  you  that  if  I  had  the  chance  to  ascend  to 
the  topmost  rung  of  the  ladder  of  evolution,  I  would 
even  then  call  you  to  account  for  all  the  victims  of 
life  and  history.  .  .  .  Otherwise  I  would  fling  myself 
from  the  top  of  the  ladder.  I  do  not  desire  happiness 
itself  gratuitously  obtained  if  I  am  not  easy  in  my 
mind  in  respect  of  all  my  brothers  by  race.  ...  It  is 
said  that  discord  is  a  condition  of  harmony  ;  this  is 
very  advantageous  and  agreeable  for  the  melomaniacs, 
but  not  for  those  whose  own  fate  is  to  furnish  discord." 

Bielinsky  explains  with  a  great  deal  of  depth  and 
subtlety  the  crisis  through  which  he  passed,  and  the 
essential  difference  between  French  thought  and  German 
thought  : — 

"In  seeking  a  solution  we  flung  ourselves  eagerly 
into  the  fascinating  domain  of  German  contemplation, 
and  we  hoped  to  create  for  ourselves  a  pleasant  world 
full  of  warmth  and  light,  a  world  of  the  inward  life. 
We  did  not  understand  that  this  contemplative  sub- 
jectivism is  an  objective  interest  for  the  German 
nationality,  that  for  the  Germans  it  is  what  the  social 
sense  is  for  the  French.  The  reality  aroused  us," 
continues  Bielinsky,  and  he  sides  with  the  French  : 
"  The  social  sense  .  .  .  that  is  my  watchword.  What 
does  it  matter  to  me  that  the  Universal  lives  if  the 
individual  suffers?  What  does  it  matter  to  me  that 
genius,  on  earth,  inhabits  the  summits,  if  the  crowd 
wallows  in  the  mire?  What  does  it  matter  to  me  that 
I  understand  the  Idea,  that  the  world  of  the  Idea 
reveals  itself  to  me  in  art,  religion,  and  history,  if  I 
cannot  share  all  this  with  those  who  should  have  been 
my  brothers  in  the  name  of  humanity  .  .  .  but  who 
are  strangers  to  me,  and  hostile,  on  account  of  their 
ignorance?  What  does  it  matter  to  me  that  happiness 
exists  for  an  elite,  if  the  majority  do  not  even  suspect 
the  possibility  of  happiness?  Away  with  happiness, 
if  it  belongs  to  me  alone  amid  thousands.  I  want 
none  of  it  if  it  is  not  common  to  me  and  my  brothers," 


IDEALS  279 

Bielinsky  applauded  the  criticisms  brought  against 
Hegel's  conservative  abstractions  by  the  Hegelians  of 
the  "  Left  "  ;  he  regarded  these  attacks  "  as  the  proof 
that  even  the  Germans  may  possibly  in  the  future 
become  men  and  cease  to  be  Germans." 

Bielinsky 's  opinion  of  French  literature  also  under- 
went a  transformation.  He  prostrated  himself  before 
Voltaire — *  What  a  noble  personality  !  "  he  cried  ; 
before  George  Sand  also,  "an  inspired  prophet,  the 
vigorous  champion  of  the  rights  of  women  "  ;  and  he 
admired  the  Saint-Simonians.  But  he  retained  all  his 
old  independence  of  thought  and  judgment  ;  for 
example,  he  was  up  in  arms  against  Rousseau,  con- 
demning his  personal  life  ;  while  in  Auguste  Comte 
he  did  not  find  even  d<  the  traces  of  genius." 

In  a  letter  dated  1847  he  says  of  himself  :  "Mine 
in  not  a  Russian  character.  I  would  not  be  a  French- 
man even,  though  I  love  and  esteem  the  French  nation 
more  than  the  rest.  The  Russian  character  is  so  far 
nothing  but  an  embryo,  but  what  strength  and  ampli- 
tude it  contains  !  How  stifling  and  horrible  all 
mediocrity  and  narrowness  seems  to  it  !  "  Bielinsky 
regards  the  spirit  of  criticism,  protest,  and  negation 
as  the  most  precious  gift  of  the  Russian  mind,  and 
in  respect  of  his  old  ideas  concerning  reality  he  says  : — 

'•'  That  which  exists  is  reasonable.  But  a  hangman 
exists,  and  his  existence  is  reasonable  and  real  ;  never- 
theless it  is  abominable  and  repulsive.  .  .  .  Negation  ; 
that  is  my  god.  In  history  my  heroes  are  the  destroyers 
of  the  things  whose  time  is  past  :  Luther,  Voltaire, 
the  Encyclopaedists,  the  French  Terrorists,  Byron  (Cain), 
etc.  Reason  is  for  me,  to-day,  superior  to  the  reason- 
able. This  is  why  I  set  the  blasphemies  of  Voltaire 
above  all  submission  to  authority  and  religion  and 
society.'/ 

This  new  phase  in  Bielinsky's  intellectual  develop- 
ment is  most  completely  depicted  in  his  Letter  to 
Gogol,  which  will  always  remain  among  the  most  re- 
markable   models    of    Russian    literature.      Gogol,    a 


280  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

famous  satiric  writer,  had  himself  condemned  all  his 
ideas  concerning  Russia,  had  retracted  all  the  just 
accusations  which  he  had  made  against  her  ills,  and 
had  exhorted  the  thinkers  of  Russia  to  mystic  resigna- 
tion, humility,  and  reconciliation  with  the  Orthodox 
Church  and  autocratic  power.  Bielinsky  wrote  him 
a  crushing  reply,  in  which  he  stated  that  "  Russia 
beheld  her  salvation  not  in  mysticism,  nor  asceticism, 
nor  pietism,  but  in  the  success  of  civilization,  enlighten- 
ment,  and  humanity." 

At  the  end  of  his  days  Bielinsky  began  to  be  influ- 
enced by  the  philosophy  of  Feuerbach,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  by  Fourierism,  on  the  other.  But  in  the  spring 
of  1848  phthisis,  that  "'malady  of  occupation"  of 
Russian  writers,  brought  him  to  the  grave.  Death 
came  in  time  to  save  him  from  persecution.  The 
Government  of  Nicolas  I,  which  had  no  objection  to 
Bielinsky 's  Hegelian  conservatism,  could  not  tolerate 
his  later  principles,  and  at  the  very  hour  when  he 
lay  dying  the  gendarmes  came  to  his  house  to  arrest 
him.     But  it  was  too  late. 


CHAPTER    VI 

I.  Bakunin,  the  Germanophile  and  conservative.  II.  The  Slavophiles 
— Their  attitude  toward  the  Europeanization  of  Russia.  III. 
European  element  in  the  slavianophihtvo.  IV.  The  Slavophiles 
and  the  zapadniki.     V.  Herzen's  ideological  and  moral  crisis. 

I 

The  intellectual  and  moral  crisis  undergone  by 
Bielinsky  was  reproduced  with  individual  variations  in 
the  case  of  a  great  number  of  his  more  eminent  con- 
temporaries. His  story  is  typical.  Let  us,  for  example, 
examine  the  path  followed  in  his  ideological  develop- 
ment by  the  father  of  anarchism,  Mikhail  Bakunin. 
In  his  youth  he  belonged  to  the  same  circle  as  Bielinsky, 
over  whom  Bakunin  exerted  a  very  considerable  influ- 
ence, inciting  him  to  plumb  the  very  depths  of  the 
metaphysical  idealism  of  Germany.  But  he  himself 
hesitated  before  none  of  the  logical  results  of  the 
Hegelian  philosophy  as  he  understood  and  interpreted 
it.  In  an  article  on  Hegel,  his  apology  for  reality 
and  his  aversion  for  the  French  lead  him  perhaps  even 
to  greater  lengths  than  those  of  which  Bielinsky  was 
guilty.  He  speaks  with  contemptuous  irony  of  the 
empirical  "  philosophications  "  of  Voltaire,  Rousseau, 
Diderot,  d'Alembert,  and  other  French  writers,  who 
had  assumed  the  gaudy  and  unmerited  title  of 
philosopher.  He  contrasts  the  peaceful  and  anti- 
revolutionary  Germans  with  the  turbulent  and  recrimi- 
native French.  Expounding  the  difference  between  the 
mentality  and  the  history  of  the  Germans  and  those  of 
the  French,  Bakunin  condemns  M  the  furious  and 
sanguinary    scenes   of    the    Revolution,"    rejoicing    that 

281 


282  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

"  the  profound  religious  and  aesthetic  feeling  of  the 
German  people  "  had  saved  it  from  the  "  abstract  and 
illimitable  "  whirlwind  which  "  shook  France  and  all 
but  destroyed  her."  Bakunin's  reconciliation  with 
reality  was  so  complete  that  he  sought  to  justify  all 
ills  and  all  suffering.  ''  Yes,"  he  writes,  "  suffering 
is  good  ;  it  is  that  purifying  flame  which  transforms 
the  spirit  and  makes  it  steadfast." 

At  this  period  Bakunin  had  very  conservative  ideas 
respecting  Russia  and  the  duty  of  the  Russians.  He 
believed  that  the  real  education  is  that  which  '"makes 
a  true  and  powerful  Russian  man  devoted  to  the  Tsar," 
and  that  ';<  reconciliation  with  reality  in  all  its  relations 
and  under  all  conditions  is  the  great  problem  of  our 
day."  Hegel  and  Goethe  were,  for  him,  "  the  leaders 
of  this  movement  of  reconciliation,  this  return  from 
death  to  life."  These  leaders  must  therefore  be  fol- 
lowed, and  the  French  ideals  which  are  contrary  to 
their  teaching  must  be  repudiated.  "  In  France  the 
last  spark  of  Revelation  has  disappeared.  Christen- 
dom, that  eternal  and  immutable  proof  of  the  Creator's 
love  for  His  creatures,  has  become  an  object  of  mockery 
and  contempt  for  all.  .  .  .  Religion  has  vanished,  bear- 
ing with  it  the  happiness  and  the  peace  of  France. 
.  .  .  Without  religion,  there  can  be  no  State,  and 
the  Revolution  was  the  negation  of  any  State  and  of 
all  legal  order.  .  .  .  The  whole  life  of  France  is  merely 
the  consciousness  of  the  void.  .  .  .  '  Give  us  what  is 
new — the  old  things  weary  us  ' — such  is  the  watchword 
of  the  young  France.  .  .  .  The  French  sacrifice  to 
the  fashion,  which  has  been  their  sole  goddess  from 
all  time,  all  that  is  most  holy  and  truly  great  in  life." 

This  "  French  malady,"  said  Bakunin,  had  attacked 
the  Russian  intellectuals,  who  "  filled  themselves  with 
French  phrases,  vain  words,  empty  of  meaning,  killing 
the  soul  in  the  germ  and  expelling  from  it  all  that 
is  holy  and  beautiful."  It  was  therefore  necessary 
that  Russian  society  should  "  abandon  this  babbling  " 
and    ally    itself    with    "  the    German    world    with    its 


IDEALS  283 

disciplined  conscience  "  and  "  with  our  beautiful  Russian 
reality." 

One  of  Bakunin's  Russian  biographers  has  recently 
published  a  letter  written  in  his  youth  to  his  parents. 
"  The  Russians  are  not  French,"  he  wrote  ;  "  they  love 
their  country  and  adore  their  monarch,  and  to  them  his 
will  is  law.  One  could  not  find  a  single  Russian  who 
would  not  sacrifice  all  his  interests  for  the  welfare 
of  the  Sovereign  and  the  prosperity  of  the  father- 
land." i  If  we  compare  this  extreme  conservatism  with 
Bakunin's  later  opinions,  and  with  his  anarchist  pro- 
paganda, which  is  too  well  known  to  call  for  mention 
here,  we  shall  realize  that  the  moral  and  intellectual 
crisis  which  Bakunin  underwent  was  even  more  violent 
and  more  profound  than  it  was  in  the  case  of  Bielinsky. 
But  we  must  not  fail  to  remark  that  this  crisis  not 
only  cured  Bakunin  of  Germanophilia — it  also  explains 
why  French  ideas  were  finally  triumphant  over  him. 
His  transition  from  political  and  religious  conservatism 
to  anarchism,  atheism,  and  other  '•*  subversive  " 
doctrines  coincides  with  a  radical  change  in  his 
way  of  regarding  the  conceptions  of  French  and 
German  thinkers.  From  a  Germanophile  and  Franco- 
phobe  he  became  a  Francophile  and  Germanophobe. 
And  as  though  he  wished  to  advertise  his  change  of 
front,  he  signed  with  a  French  pseudonym  (Jules 
Elisard)  the  first  article  2  in  which  he  proclaimed  his 
rupture  with  conservatism  and  his  adhesion  to  the 
Hegelians   '■'  of  the  Left." 

II 

The  struggle  between  various  European  influences 
which  has  caused  the  individual  development  of  nearly 
all  the  most  remarkable  minds  of  Russia  has  also 
given   birth   to,   and   greatly   influenced,   the   two  great 

1  Cited  from  M.  Kovalewsky's  article  in  the  Viestnik  Yevropy,  191 5,  x., 
Petrograd  :  The  conflict  of  French  and  German  influences  at  the  end  of 
the  eighteenth  century  and  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth. 

2  This  article  appeared  in  the  Deutsche  Jahrbiicher,  in  1842, 


284  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

currents    of    Russian    thought,    Slavophilia    and    Occi- 
dentalism. 

To  study  the  slavlanophilstvo  we  must  resort  more 
especially  to  the  works  of  Konstantin  Aksakov,  who 
was,  in  the  words  of  his  biographer  (M.  Venguerov), 
"the  militant  advance-guard"  of  the  movement.  It 
was  Aksakov  who  expounded  the  Slavophile  ideals  to 
the  great  public,  while  his  co-religionists  (the  brothers 
Kireevsky,  Khomiakov,  and  Samarin)  devoted  them- 
selves to  historical,  philosophical,  religious,  and  other 
studies,  and  occasionally  mitigated  the  Slavophile 
theory.  Herzen  said  of  Aksakov  that  he  "'was  re- 
fractory, like  every  militant,  for  with  a  calm  and 
deliberate  eclecticism  one  cannot  wage  war."  So  in 
Aksakov  we  find  the  simplest,  clearest,  and  most  precise 
expression  of  Slavophilia. 

"  The  world  has  perhaps  not  seen  as  yet,"  says 
Aksakov,  "  that  universal  force,  at  the  service  of  all 
humanity,  which  it  will  discover  in  the  great  Slav  race, 
and  in  the  Russians  in  particular." 

For  Aksakov,  as  for  other  Slavophiles,  v  Russian 
history  possesses  the  value  of  a  sacred  history.  It 
will  be  read  like  a  hagiography."  The  docile  Russian 
people  is  the  chosen  people  of  God  ;  '''  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  is  the  profound  basis  of  the  life  of  the  Russian 
people,"  and  M  the  history  of  the  people  is  the  history 
of  the  only  Christian  people  in  the  world." 

The  .Western  State  was  founded  on  the  coercion  of 
servitude  and  antagonism,  while  in  Russia  the  life 
of  the  people  is  of  a  totally  different  character  ; 
"  Russia  is  a  Wholly  original  country,  which  has  no  re- 
semblance to  the  European  States."  In  the  .West  the 
people  has  acquired  the  ideal  of  the  State  ;  in  Russia 
it  is  in  love  with  a  moral  ideal.  The  most  demo- 
cratic States  of  the  West  are  those  which  shock  Aksakov 
the  most.  In  the  United  States,  for  example,  he  finds, 
"  instead  of  the  people,  a  State  machine  composed  of 
men."  The  external  order  of  the  United  States  is 
brilliant,  but  "this  brilliance  is  only  superficial.;    good 


IDEALS  285 

order  prevails  there,  but  it  is  only  the  order  of  a 
machine."  In  other  words,  the  democratization  of  the 
State  does  not  lead  to  good  results.  'The  Republic 
is  the  people's  attempt  to  be  itself  the  State,  to 
transform  itself,  as  a  whole,  into  the  State  ;  it  has 
therefore  striven  to  abandon  once  and  for  all  the  path 
of  moral  liberty  and  inward  truth  in  order  to  enter 
upon  the  outer  paths  of  '  statism.'  " 

Russia  took  quite  a  different  direction.  "  The  Divine 
grace  has  descended  upon  Russia,  who  accepted  the 
Orthodox  faith,  while  the  West  followed  the  path  of 
Catholicism."  Unlike  the  West,  "Russia  did  not  adopt 
slavery  ;  she  knows  neither  slavery  nor  liberalism.  She 
is  a  free  country.  The  West  began  by  slavery,  pro- 
ceeded with  revolt,  and  boasts  of  her  insolent  liberalism, 
which  is  only  the  insolence  of  a  slave."  Law,  duty, 
and  the  State,  or,  generally  speaking,  an  "  external 
dogma,"  prevails  in  the  West  ;  while  a  free  conscience 
and  the  inner  truth  prevail  in  Russia,  where  "  the  State 
has  never  seduced  the  people,  nor  flattered  its  dreams." 
44  The  West  is  accustomed  to  vice.  There  is  a  great 
difference  between  a  sin  and  a  vice.  In  ancient  Russia 
there  were  sins,  but  no  vices." 

According  to  Aksakov  there  was,  in  ancient  Russia, 
no  aristocracy  and  no  paganism.  "  The  State  "  never 
dominated  "  the  soil."  Only  after  the  reforms  of  Peter 
the  Great  did  the  external  norm  of  the  West  begin 
to  subdue  the  internal  norm  of  Russia.  Aksakov 
cherished  a  genuine  hatred  of  Peter  the  Great.  He 
even  devoted  some  verses  to  him,  in  which  he  describes 
him  as  follows  : — 

O  mighty  genius,  O  bloodstained  man, 

Far  from  the  confines  of  the  fatherland 

Thou  standest  erect  in  the  blaze  of  a  horrible  glory 

With  an  axe  covered  with  blood. 

In  the  name  of  utility  and  knowledge, 

Borrowed  from  an  alien  land, 

More  than  once  thy  powerful  hands 

Were  empurpled  with  the  blood  of  thy  people. 


286  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

All  Russia,  all  her  previous  life 
By  thee  was  misconceived, 
And  upon  thy  stupendous  work 
Is  set  the  seal  of  malediction. 

Pitilessly  didst  thou  repudiate  Moscow, 
And  far  from  the  people 
Thou  didst  build  a  solitary  city  : 
No  longer  could  you  dwell  together. 

In  another  poem,  entitled  The  Return,  Aksakov  invites 
the  Russians  to  return  "  home  "•: — 

Uprooted  by  a  mighty  hand, 

We  have  left  our  native  country  ; 

We  have  fled  far  away,  enchanted  by  a  foreign  land, 

Despising  the  life  of  our  own  .  .  . 

The  cloud  has  lifted  !     Before  our  eyes 

Russia  has  reappeared. 

Ended,  ended  is  the  aching  separation, 

The  long-desired  end  of  exile  has  come, 

The  voices  of  our  country  flock  into  our  souls, 

And  our  gaze  is  fixed,  full  of  love,  upon  the  East. 

//  is  time  to  turn  homeward.     Our  natal  soil  awaits  us, 

Our  country,  great  in  its  speechless  anguish. 

Aksakov  recurs  to  this  idea  of  the  "  return  "  in  a 
later  article  : — 

"  .We  must  return  to  the  principles  of  the  native  land. 
The  path  to  the  West  is  a  false  track  ;  it  is  shameful 
to  follow  it.  Russians  must  be  Russians,  must  take 
a  Russian  path,  the  path  of  faith,  submission,  and 
the  inner  life.  .  .  .  We  must  liberate  ourselves  wholly 
from  the  West,  from  its  principles  as  well  as  its 
tendencies,  its  habits,  and  its  morals  ...  in  a  word, 
from  all  that  bears  the  imprint  of  its  mind." 

The  social  and  political  life  of  Russia  must  not  be 
based  upon  a  Constitution  of  the  European  type,  but 
on  a  moral  understanding  between  the  Government 
and  the  people.  "  To  the  Government,  unlimited  State 
authority  ;  to  the  people,  full  moral  liberty.  To 
the  Government,  the  right  to  act  and  consequently  to 


IDEALS  287 

legislate  ;    to  the  people,  the  right  to  judge,  and  there- 
fore to  speak." 

An  "  Assembly  of  the  Soil  "  (Zemsky  Sobor)  con- 
voked by  the  Government,  and  having  a  consultative 
voice  ;  such  was  the  only  kind  of  "  Constitution  " 
admitted  by  Aksakov. 

"  We  shall  be  told,"  he  writes,  "  that  the  people 
and  the  authorities  may  betray  one  another  ;  there- 
fore a  guarantee  is  necessary  ! — No,  no  guarantee  is 
necessary  !  A  guarantee  is  an  evil.  When  a  guarantee 
is  necessary  nothing  is  well  ;  let  life  disappear  rather 
when  nothing  is  well." 

Regarding  the  manifestations  of  public  opinion  and 
liberty  of  speech  as  the  principal  right  of  the 
people,  Aksakov  presents  a  brilliant  justification  of 
this   right  : — 

"  Nothing  can  be  more  harmful  than  the  intrusion 
of  brutal  force  in  moral  problems  ;  the  only  weapon 
of  moral  truth  is  free  conviction,  is  speech."  Speech 
is,  for  Aksakov,  "  the  only  sword  of  the  spirit,"  "  the 
banner  of  man  upon  earth."  "  Created  by  man,  even 
as  sound  was  created,  all  imbued  with  consciousness, 
speech  animates  the  visible  world  and  gives  a  body 
to  the  invisible." 

As  a  rule  the  Slavophiles  of  this  period  were  not, 
subjectively  speaking,  reactionaries  ;  in  their  nationalistic 
and  conservative  romanticism  we  find  many  demo- 
cratic characteristics,  the  chief  of  which  is  the 
antithesis  of  the  "  simple  "  people  and  the  "  high 
society  "  corrupted  by  Europe. 

"  The  simple  people  is  the  basis  of  the  whole  social 
edifice  of  the  country.  Both  the  source  of  material 
welfare,  and  the  source  of  inward  power  and  inward 
life,  and,  lastly,  the  source  of  the  national  ideal,  reside 
in  the  simple  people." 

So  it  is  throughout  the  world.  But  with  us,  in  Russia, 
the  role  of  the  "  simple  people  "  is  greater  than  else- 
where, because  with  us  "  the  people  alone  is  the 
guardian    of    the    national    and    historical    assizes    of 


288  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

Russia  ;  it  alone  has  not  broken  with  the  past,  jwith 
the  ancient  Russia." 

Aksakov  speaks  in  very  sarcastic  terms  of  the 
educated  and  Europeanized  society  which  he  calls 
"  the  public,"  and  which  he  contrasts  with  the  "  simple 
people."  The  scission  between  the  "  public  "  and  the 
people  is  due  to  the  reforms  of  Peter  I.  Before  the 
building  of  Petersburg  "  there  was  no  public  in  Russia  ; 
there  was  the  people."  "  The  public  constitutes  our 
permanent  tie  with  the  West,  and  is  only  a  deformation 
of  the   popular  entity,"  says   Aksakov. 

In  a  famous  article  published  in  1857  Aksakov  estab- 
lished this  parallel  between  the  "  public  "  and  the  people 
in  Russia  : — 

"  The  public  imports  from  oversea  ideas  and  senti- 
ments, mazurkas,  and  polkas  ;  the  people  draws  its 
life  from  its  native  source.  The  public  speaks  French  ; 
the  people  Russian.  The  public  wears  foreign  clothes  ; 
the  people  the  Russian  costume.  The  public  follows  the 
Parisian  fashions  ;  the  people  adhere  to  their  Russian 
customs.  The  public  still  slumbers  when  the  people 
has  long  been  awake  and  at  work.  The  public  works 
.(usually  with  its  feet  on  a  wood  floor)  while  the  people 
sleeps,  or  is  already  awakening  to  go  to  work  anew. 
The  public  despises  the  people  ;  the  people  forgivq 
the  public.  The  public  is  only  a  hundred  and  fifty  years 
old  ;  the  age  of  the  people  is  untellable.  The  public 
passes  away  ;  the  people  is  eternal.  In  the  public 
there  is  gold  and  dross  ;  in  the  people  there  is  gold 
and  dross;  but  in  the  public  there  is  dross  in  the 
gold,  and  in  the  people  there  is  gold  in  the  dross." 

Alexander  II,  having  read  this  article,  found  that 
it   "'  was  conceived  in  a  bad  spirit." 

In  a  poem,  To  a  Humanitarian,  Aksakov  addresses 
these  cultivated  men  and  invites  them  to  restore  the 
ties  between  them  and  the  people,  to  '•''  rediscover  them- 
selves in  the  people,"  to  v  submit  to  the  collectivity," 
informing  them  that  "  otherwise  they  are  only  impotent 
egoists,  their  fair-seeming  life  is  void,  their  aspirations 
futile,  and  their  dreams  deceitful." 


IDEALS  289 


III 


It  might  be  supposed  that  the  Slavophile  theory — 
so  essentially  nationalistic — was  of  national  origin.  13ut 
such  a  supposition  would  be  erroneous.  In  reality 
the  Russian  slavianophilstvo  is  objectively  far  less 
remote  from  European  ideals  than  its  representatives 
were  personally  alienated  from  the  West. 

Russian  Slavophilia  presents  a  close  analogy  with 
the  romantic  nationalism  of  the  West.  I  do  not  share 
the  opinion  of  Schulze-Gavernitz,  who  seeks  to  compare 
the  Russian  slavianophilstvo  with  European  mercan- 
tilism. Mercantilism  was  a  middle-class  theory  ;  it 
appeared  for  the  first  time  in  Russia  under  Peter  the 
Great,  at  the  period  of  the  first  embourgeoisement .  The 
Slavophiles  were,  on  the  other  hand,  the  desperate 
enemies  of  bourgeois  society,  and  of  the  bourgeois  State 
of  the  Occident.  This  is  precisely  why  they  opposed 
the  work  of  Peter  I.  Their  dissertations  on  the  evil 
of  "  written  guarantees  "  and  the  necessity  of  a  moral 
agreement  between  the  rulers  and  the  ruled  were  merely 
an  attempt  to  embellish  their  theory  of  a  "  paternal 
authority,"  a  feudal  theory  dear  to  the  seigneurs,  who 
loved  to  regard  themselves  as  the  "  fathers  "  of  their 
serfs.  And  it  is  no  fortuitous  coincidence  that  these 
ideas  were  first  professed  just  as  serfdom  and  the 
seigneurial  right  were  on  the  eve  of  abolition. 

Slavophilia  is  a  Russian  transformation  of  that 
romanticism  which  flourished  all  over  Europe  during 
the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

"  The  mass  of  the  public  is  accustomed  to  consider 
the  birth  of  Slavophilia  as  a  purely  original  and  native 
phenomenon.  .  .  .  But  the  intellectual  history  of  Europe 
proves  that  almost  every  country  in  its  day  was  subject 
to  a  movement  resembling  our  slavianophilstvo."'  This 
was  the  case  with  Bohemia,  Poland,  Denmark,  Sweden, 
and  above  all  in  Germany,  where,  "  combining  their 
efforts,  romantic  poetry  and  philosophy  prepared  all 
the  forces  of  the  Germanophile  movement  :    the  idealiza- 

19 


290  RUSSIA    AND   EUROPE 

tion  of  the  past,  fortified  by  the  cult  of  its  memories, 
and  the  predominance  of  the  religious  principle  in  the 
legends  and  the  life  of  olden  times,  lent  its  prestige  to 
a  morbid  piety  and  mysticism  ;  the  search  after  the 
providential  mission,  which  is  the  raison  d'etre  of  the 
German  people,  gave  rise  to  the  principle  of  inflated 
nationalism,  by  introducing  the  habit  of  resolutely  con- 
demning everything  that  did  not  harmonize  with  this 
principle.  .  .  .  Instead  of  launching  itself  into  the  vast 
domain  of  an  advance  extending  to  the  whole  of 
humanity,  thought  confined  itself  within  narrow  limits, 
and  there  struggled  as  though  in  chains,  denying  the 
eternal  law  of  the  march  onward  and  setting  its  ideals 
behind  it.  .  .  .  We  know  what  was  the  lamentable 
end  of  these  romantics,  with  what  a  religious  and 
political  fanaticism  they  became  imbued,  becoming  the 
faithful  servitors  of  any  reactionary  government,  and 
the  inspiring  cause  of  all  the  persecutions  inflicted  upon 
modern  thought,  which  did  not  bow  before  their 
archaico-nationalist  theories."  • 

The  points  of  contact  between  the  romantic  philo- 
sophy of  Germany  and  the  slavianophilstvo  of  Russia 
are  plainly  visible.  From  Fichte  the  Slavophiles 
borrowed  the  comparison  between  internal  truth  and 
external  truth  ;  from  Schelling  they  acquired  a  sort 
of  contempt  for  science,  to  which  the  German  opposed 
artistic  intuition,  which  they  replaced  by  "  the  pro- 
fundity of  the  intuition  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church, 
original  and  inaccessible  to  European  minds,  living  and 
integral  "  ;  an  intuition  preserved  by  the  Orthodox 
Church  and  by  the  "  simple  people."  From  Hegel 
they  borrowed  the  dogma  of  the  people  elected  by  God 
and  by  Him  predestined  to  a  lofty  mission  ;  but  while 
Hegel  reserved  this  privilege  for  the  German  people, 
they  claimed  it  for  the  Russians. 

If  it  were  necessary,  I  could  add  biographical  data 
which    would    tend    to    prove    that    the    idealism    and 

*  Alexis  Vcselovsky,  Western  Influences  in  the  New  Russian  Literature, 
pp.  185-6. 


IDEALS  291 

romanticism  of  Germany  had  a  direct  effect  upon  the 
Russian  Slavophiles.  But  I  believe  this  point  is  suffi- 
ciently established. 

IV 

I  must  add  that  the  best  representatives  of  Slavo- 
philia,  while  preferring  the  "  inner  truth  '  of  Russia 
to  the  "  outward  truth  "  of  Europe,  did  not  demean 
themselves  by  a  blind  hatred  of  Europe.  According 
to  Herzen,  Ivan  Kireevsky,  the  theorist  of  slaviano- 
philstvo,  was  "  an  admirer  of  liberty  and  of  the  great 
period  of  the  French  Revolution."  Kireevsky  himself, 
in  one  of  his  works,  gives  a  "synthesis  of  the  Russian 
truth  and  the  European  truth.  "  The  love  of  European 
civilization  and  the  love  of  Russian  civilization  mingle 
at  the  latest  point  of  their  development  and  become  the 
same  love,  the  same  aspiration  toward  a  living  civi- 
lization, complete,  and  embracing  all  humanity,  and 
truly  Christian." 

Later,  the  leaders  of  the  Occidentalist  movement  were 
of  opinion  that  there  were  far  more  points  of  simi- 
larity between  the  Slavophiles  and  the  zapadniki  than 
had  been  supposed.  Herzen  declared  that  Slavophilia 
and  zapadnitchestvo  were  in  reality  but  a  Janus  whose 
two  faces  looked  in  different  directions,  but  which  had 
but  one  heart.  Herzen  even  asserted  that  "the  Occi- 
dentalist party  in  Russia  will  only  have  the  rank  and 
the  power  of  a  social  force  when  it  masters  the  subjects 
and  the  problems  which  the  Slavophiles  have  put  into 
circulation." 

According  to  Herzen,  Russian  society  saluted  in  the 
zapadniki  "  the  thought  of  the  West,  burning  with  the 
desire  for  liberty,  the  desire  for  intellectual  independ- 
ence, and  the  desire  for  conquest.  Through  the  Slavo- 
philes it  protested  against  the  Bironic  arrogance  of 
the  Petersburg  Government,  which  wronged  the  senti- 
ment of  nationalism." 

But  all  these  comparisons  were  made  at  a  later 
date  ;     we    may    even    say    that    they    were    made    too 


292  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

late  ;  for  at  the  time  of  their  origin  the  two  great 
ideological  movements  of  Russia  were  in  violent  con- 
flict. 

The  zapadniki  of  all  shades  became  compacted  by 
their  condemnation  of  the  Slavophiles.  The  Catholic 
Occidentalist  Tshaadaev  wrote  as  follows  of  their  efforts 
to  base  their  theory  upon  history  and  archaeology  : — 

"  Our  fanatical  Slavophiles  may  well,  in  their  various 
researches,  exhume  from  time  to  time  curiosities  for 
our  museums  or  libraries,  but  it  is,  I  think,  permissible 
to  doubt  whether  they  will  ever  succeed  in  extracting 
from  our  history  anything  which  will  fill  the  void  in 
our  souls,  or  concentrate  the  vagueness  of  our  minds." 

Tshaadaev  criticized  the  Slavophilia  of  his  day  with 
extreme  severity  : — 

"  A  veritable  revolution  is  taking  place  in  our  midst, 
and  in  our  national  thought  ;  a  passionate  reaction 
against  the  knowledge  and  the  ideals  of  the  West  ; 
against  that  knowledge  and  those  ideals  which  have 
made  us  what  we  are,  and  of  which  this  very  reaction 
is  the  fruit." 

Bielinsky  was  induced  by  his  antipathy  for  the  Slavo- 
philes to  recommend  his  friends  to  break  off  all  personal 
relations  with  them.  "  I  am  a  Jew  by  nature,"  he  wrote, 
"  and  I  cannot  sit  at  table  with  the  Philistines."  He 
believed  the  nationalist  propaganda  of  the  Slavophiles 
to  be  useless  :  "  If  a  nation  possesses  internal  forces 
it  need  not  trouble  about  its  national  originality  :  this 
will  express  itself  spontaneously  and  naturally." 
Stankievitch,  Bielinsky's  friend,  writes  as  follows  : 
".Why  trouble  about  our  nationality?  We  must  aspire 
to  the  things  which  concern  humanity  at  large  ;  what 
concerns  the  individual  will  come  about  despite  our 
efforts." 

But  this  does  not  mean  that  the  zapadniki  were 
cosmopolitans  and  enemies  of  their  country.  Bielinsky 
states  in  one  of  his  articles  that  "  without  nationalities 
humanity  would  be  only  a  lifeless  logical  abstraction, 
a  word  without  meaning,  a  sound  without  significance." 


IDEALS  293 

V.  Botkin,  one  of  the  most  interesting  zapadniki  of 
his  times,  wrote  to  one  of  his  friends  :  "The  Slavo- 
philes have  spoken  a  true  word— which  is,  nationality. 
This  is  their  great  merit.  They  were  the  first  to  feel 
that  our  cosmopolitanism  leads  us  only  to  empty  argu- 
ment and  idle  babbling.  ...  In  general  they  were 
justified  in  their  criticism.  But  their  good  qualities 
are  confined  to  criticism.  Directly  they  tackle  a  positive 
subject  they  display  narrowness  of  mind,  ignorance, 
an  archaic  mentality  which  is  positively  stilling,  a  mis- 
conception of  the  simplest  principles  of  economic  and 
political   science,    intolerance,    obscurantism,    etc."  ' 

The  zapadniki  could  not  endure  the  idealization  of 
ancient  Russia  of  which  the  Slavophiles  were  guilty, 
in  the  first  place  because  it  was  contrary  to  reality 
and  historic  truth.  Then  the  reconciliation  with  the 
past  too  readily  degenerated  into  reconciliation  with 
the  present,  which  was  by  no  means  beautiful  under 
Nicolas  I,  for  all  Russia  was  groaning  under  the  heavy 
sceptre  of  the  Byzantino- Prussian  regime.  If  the  feel- 
ings of  the  Slavophiles  were  injured  because  their  adver- 
saries were  often  lacking  in  respect  for  the  national 
past,  the  feelings  of  the  zapadniki  suffered  even  more, 
on  account  of  the  disdain  which  the  Slavophiles  professed 
for  the  "  false  "  civilization  of  Europe  and  their  obsti- 
nate  belittlement    of   this    civilization. 

We  must  not  forget  that  Europe,  as  we  have  already 
observed,2  was  to  the  Russian  Occidentalists  of  those 
days  "  the  promised  land,"  and  they  expected  so  much 
of  the  Europeanization  of  their  country,  they  hoped 
such  great  things  from  it,  that  any  attack  upon  the 
object  of  their  cult  was  regarded  by  them  almost  as  a 
personal  outrage. 

1  I  cite  this  letter  and  Bielinsky's  letters  from  an  excellent  collection 
of  documents  relating  to  the  Occidentalist  movement  in  Russia,  pub- 
lished in  Russian  under  the  title  The  Zapadniki  from  1840  to  1850 
(Moscow,  1910). 

3  See  G.  A.  Alexinsky,  Russia  and  Europe,  trans.  B.  Miall  (Fisher 
Unwin),  pp.  388-528. 


294  RUSSIA   AND  EUROPE 

On  the  other  hand — and  this  is  a  point  of  great 
importance — the  Slavophiles  had  "  friends  on  the 
Right  "  as  their  auxiliaries  in  their  conflict  with  the 
zapadniki.  These  reactionary  nationalists,  among  whom 
we  must  mention  more  especially  Professors  Shevyrev 
and  Pogodin,  made  very  practical  use  of  the  theories  of 
the  Slavophiles.  Although  the  best  of  the  Slavophiles 
observed  a  certain  moderation  in  their  reprobation  of 
the  Occident,  their  "  friends  on  the  Right  "  professed 
without  any  mitigation  that  the  West  was  "  rotten," 
that   Europe   was    "  carrion,"   etc. 

The  official  and  governmental  world  was  also  in- 
volved in  the  conflict,  and  sought  to  profit  by  it. 
Although  it  was  shocked  by  the  essential  democracy 
of  some  of  the  Slavophiles,  it  found  their  conceptions 
far  less  dangerous  than  those  of  the  Occidentalists. 
The  government  of  Nicolas  I  was  afraid'  of  the  example 
of  Europe.  Count  Ouvarov  stated  that  "  all  the.  Western 
peoples  are  changing  their  conditions  of  life,"  but  that 
"  Russia  is  still  young  and  virgin,"  and  "  must  not 
acquire  a  taste  for  sanguinary  upheavals."  "  Russia's 
youth  must  be  prolonged,"  he  declared.  "  If  I  could 
keep  Russia  for  fifty  years  aloof  from  what  these  theories 
are  making  ready  for  her,  I  should  consider  that  my 
duty  was  accomplished,  and   I   should  die   content." 

Ouvarov  even  conceived  a  theory  of  official  con- 
servatism :  Russia  does  not  resemble  the  European 
States,  and  her  life  is  based  on  three  immovable  foun- 
dations :  autocracy,  Orthodoxy,  and  the  Russian  nation- 
ality. For  the  salvation  of  this  precious  trinity  the 
Government  punished  all  aspirations  toward  independ- 
ence and  progress,  and  employed  against  the  zapadniki 
all  the  might  of  its  police  mechanism. 

Official  nationalism  did  much  to  compromise  the 
Slavophiles  by  its  adhesion  to  their  ideas,  and  often 
exploited  them.  The  Slavophiles  should  not  be  held 
responsible  for  the  somewhat  indecent  procedures  of 
their  "  friends  on  the  Right,"  and  I  do  not  share  the 
opinion   of    the    Czech    Professor   Masaryk,    who    goes 


IDEALS  295 

so  far  as  to  say  that  the  Slavophiles,  "  with  the  help 
of  German  philosophy,  erected  Ouvarov's  programme 
into  a  system."  '  Nevertheless,  the  heat  of  polemics 
might  have  resulted  in  a  certain  understanding,  and 
the  zapadniki  were  possibly  not  always  without  justifi- 
cation when  they  accused  the  Slavophiles  of  official 
and  reactionary  support,  and  asserted  that  they  did  not 
always  hold  themselves  aloof  from  the  nationalist 
Extreme  Right. 

Thus  the  conflict  between  the  two  great  currents 
of  Russian  thought  became  envenomed,  and  they  could 
no   longer   co-exist    in  a   peaceable   manner. 


Occidentalism  was  no  longer  entirely  homogeneous. 
Besides  the  Bakunin-Bielinsky-Stankievitsh  group,  the 
zapadniki  were  also  represented  by  the  circle  of  Herzen 
and  Ogariov  and  their  followers.  Herzen  has  defined 
the  difference  between  these  two  elements  as  follows  : — 

"  Between  our  group  and  that  of  Stankievitsh  there 
was  not  a  great  deal  of  sympathy.  Our  tendencies, 
being  almost  exclusively  political,  did  not  please  them. 
Theirs,  being  almost  exclusively  speculative,  did  not 
please  us  any  better.  They  regarded  us  as  French 
and  fault-finders  ;  we  regarded  them  as  Germans  and 
sentimentalists." 

The  French  influence  in  Herzen  and  his  friends  was 
betrayed  in  the  first  place  by  a  genuine  cult  of  Saint - 
Simonism,  of  which  we  shall  speak  later  on,  and  for 
George  Sand.  The  latter  possessed  so  great  and  so 
beneficent  an  authority  that  even  Dostoievsky,  who  had 
none  too  much  sympathy  with  France  and  French 
literature,  glorified  her   at  her  death. 

"  Oh,  be  sure,  there  will  be  people  who  will  smile 
at  the  importance  which  I  attribute  to  the  influence 
of  George  Sand,"   he  wrote,   "  but  the  scoffers  will  be 

1  Th.  G.  Masaryk,  Russland   unci  Europa—Zur  Russisckcn  Geschichtst 
unci  Religions  Philosophic.     Soziologischen  Skiasen,  vol.  i.  p.   200   (Jena, 

I9I3)- 


296  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

wrong.  George  Sand  is  dead.  But  all  that  made  us 
feel,  at  the  time  of  the  poet's  first  appearance,  that 
we  were  hearing  a  new  voice,  all  that  was  universally 
human  in  her  work,  all  this  found  an  instant  echo  in 
our  hearts,  in  our  Russia.  We  experienced  a  profound 
and  intense  impression,  which  has  not  faded,  and  which 
proves  that  every  European  poet  or  innovator,  every 
new  and  powerful  thought  coming  from  the  West, 
inevitably  becomes  a  Russian  force."  And  Dostoievsky 
places  George  Sand  among  those  European  writers 
Who  "  rising  yonder,  in  the  country  of  blessed  miracles," 
have  drawn  to  them,  from  our  Russia,  an  enormous 
sum  of  thought,  of  love,  of  noble  impulses,  of  pro- 
found  convictions,    of    life." 

The  ideas  of  George  Sand  and  of  the  great  French 
Utopian  Socialists,  to  whom  the  memories  of  the  French 
Revolution  gave  an  added  prestige,  inspired  the  Russian 
zapadniki  with  a  feeling  of  religious  love  and  admira- 
tion. Herzen,  speaking  of  this  period  in  his  Memoirs, 
states  that  "  he  illumined  Europe  with  magical  colours; 
he  believed  in  Europe,  and  above  all  in  France" 
Another  great  zapadnik,  Soltykov-Shtshedrin,  in  spite 
of  all  his  scepticism  (he  was  a  satirist),  speaks  of 
France  with  touching  affection,  and  states  that  the 
France  of  George  Sand,  Saint-Simon,  Louis  Blanc, 
Cabet,  and  Fourier  shed  upon  Russia  the  fair  light  of 
hope  and  the  conviction  that  "  the  best  years  of 
humanity,  its  golden  age,  are  not  behind  us,  but  before 
us." 

The  influence  of  French  thought  upon  Herzen's  mind 
was  not  exclusive,  as  he  succeeded  in  combining  it 
with  Hegelianism  "  of  the  Left  "  and  the  philosophy 
of  Feuerbach.  As  for  Hegelianism,  Herzen  appro- 
priated only  its  revolutionary  algebra  ;  that  is,  the 
idea  that  nothing  is  immutable,  and  that  every  social 
condition  contains  the   germs  of  a   radical  change. 

With  an  ardent  faith  in  the  West  in  general,  and 
France  in  particular,  with  a  faith  no  less  ardent  in  a 
revolutionary  cataclysm,  Herzen  went  to  Europe.     Dis- 


IDEALS  297 

illusion  awaited  him  there.  A  brief  sojourn  abroad 
deprived  him  of  all  his  enthusiasm  and  all  his  hopes. 
This  he  declared  openly  and  with  entire  sincerity.  He 
confessed  that  he  was  ashamed  of  his  affection  for 
Europe  ;  that  he  "  blushed  for  his  prejudices."  The 
first  origin  of  this  disillusion  was  the  events  of  1848 
in  France.  The  general  check  which  the  Revolution 
received  throughout  Europe  intensified  the  crisis  in 
Herzen's  mind,  which  resulted  in  the  publication  of 
several  remarkable  works,  notably  his  book  From  the 
other  Shore,  which  is  full  of  a  veritable  universal 
sorrow. 

"  We  were  young  two  years  ago  ;  to-day  we  are 
old,"  wrote  Herzen  in  1850,  describing  the  effect 
produced  upon  him  by  what  he  had  seen  in  Europe. 
From  that  moment  he  renounced  his  old  "  belief  in 
words  and  flags,  in  the  deification  of  humanity  and 
the  illusion  that  salvation  can  only  be  effected  by  the 
Church  of  European  civilization."  For  Herzen  the  West 
was  dead.  It  was  an  old  world  from  which  nothing 
was  to  be  expected. 

Then  began  Herzen's  famous  "  return  to  Russia." 
He  did  not  return  to  Russia  in  person,  however,  for 
until  the  end  of  his  days  h;e  remained  a  political 
emigre,  and  he  died  far  away  from  his  country.  His  old 
confidence  in  Europe  was  replaced  by  his  trust  in  the 
future  of  Russia. 

The  Nationalists,  the  Slavophiles,  the  conservatives, 
and  all  the  other  Russian  adversaries  of  Occidental- 
ism, sought  to  exploit  Herzen's  change  of  front  in 
order  to  combat  European  ideals  and  the  Euro- 
peanization  of  Russia.  Strakhov,  the  friend  of  Leo 
Tolstoy,  has  devoted  to  Herzen  quite  the  half  of  his 
curious  work,  The  Struggle  against  the  W.est  in  our 
Literature'. 

"  Herzen,"  says  Strakhov,  "  was  the  first  of  our 
zapadniki  to  abjure  the  West,  and  he  consequently 
lost  his  guiding  line.  He  turned  to  the  West  in  order 
to    draw    from    it    wisdom    and    moral   perfection,    and 


298  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

he   understood,    after    long   and   patient    research,   that 
he  could  find  nothing  stable  there,  nothing  positive."  » 

Strakhov  sought  to  draw  from  this  a  deduction  of 
a  more  general  nature.  In  his  opinion  Herzen,  by 
abandoning  his  illusions  as  to  Europe,  was  continuing 
the  genuine  tradition  of  Russian  literature.  "  Occi- 
dental civilization  and  ideals  of  European  origin  are 
not  at  bottom  suited  to  Russia,"  says  Strakhov.  Russia 
may  borrow  from  the  West  its  "  astronomy  and  mathe- 
matics "  ;  simple  elementary  truths,  such  as  "  two  and 
two  make  four  "  ;  but  "  as  a  whole  "  the  spirit  of 
Europe  can  be  of  no  service  to  Russia,  who  must 
follow    her    own    individual    path. 

'  For  a  long  time  now — very  conspicuously  since  the 
time  of  Karamzin — every  Russian  writer  of  worth  passes 
through  intellectual  changes,  which  in  general  are  fairly 
similar.  He  begins  by  falling  in  love  with  European 
ideas,  by  seizing  upon  them  greedily.  Then  comes 
disillusion,  in  one  form  or  another,  for  one  reason  or 
another  ;  he  doubts  Europe  and  feels  an  antipathy  for 
her  principles.  Lastly  begins  the  return  homeward, 
a  love,  more  or  less  happy,  for  Russia,  and  it  is  in 
Russia  that  he  seeks  for  the  assured  destiny,  the  solid 
foundations  of  thought  and  life."2 

In  support  of  his  theory  Strakhov  cites  the  names 
of  Karamzin,  Griboiedov,  Pushkin,  Gogol,  Dostoievsky, 
and  Tolstoy  ;  "  all,"  he  says,  "  have  passed  along  this 
road." 

These  examples  differ  too  greatly  to  be  convincing. 
We  know  that  Karamzin,  at  the  end  of  his  life,  became 
a  conservative  and  anti-Occidentalist.  But  this  fact 
cannot  be  regarded  as  characteristic  of  every  Russian 
writer,  because  it  was  due  to  causes  of  a  general  kind 
which  at  that  period  were  in  operation  all  over  Europe  ; 
there  was  everywhere,  at  that  time,  a  movement  of 
reaction,  the  inevitable  result  of  the  events  of  the  French 
Revolution.      As   for   Griboiedov,   he   was   by   no   means 

1  N.  Strakhov,  The  Struggle  against  the  West  in  our  Literature,  p.  83, 

2  Ibid.  p.  94. 


IDEALS  299 

an  anti-Occidentalist.  Although  the  hero  of  his  im- 
mortal comedy,  Tshatsky,  fulminates  against  the  abuse 
of  a  "  vain,  servile,  and  blind  imitation  of  Europe," 
he  is  not  referring  to  European  civilization,  but  the 
false  imitation,  the  caricature  of  this  civilization  wlii<  h 
is  offered  by  Russian  fashionable  society.  And  he 
attacks  with  even  greater  energy  those  representativ 
of  a  pretended  "  national  civilization  "  who  want  to 
"  replace  Voltaire  by  a  sergeant-major."  In  a  letter 
to  a  friend  Griboiedov  complains  bitterly  of  the  painful 
lot  of  "  an  impassioned  dreamer  in  a  country  of  eternal 
snows."  As  for  Pushkin,  Strakhov's  error  is  even 
greater  ;  Pushkin,  to  the  last  day  of  his  too  brief 
life,  remained  a  convinced  Occidentalist  ;  never  did 
he  condemn  European  civilization.  Moreover,  Pushkin 
was,  without  doubt,  the  most  national  and  the  least 
nationalistic  of  the  Russian  poets.  He  had  a  "  uni- 
versal mind,"  as  Dostoievsky  very  justly  remarked,  which 
combined  a  capacity  for  universal  sympathy  with  the 
essential  traits  of   the  true  Russian  character. 

"  What  has  the  reform  of  Peter  the  Great  meant  for 
us?  "  writes  Dostoievsky  in  his  lecture  upon  Pushkin. 
"  Has  it  not  meant  merely  the  introduction  of  European 
costume,  European  science  and  inventions?  Let  us 
consider.  Perhaps  Peter  the  Great  undertook  his 
reform,  in  the  first  place,  with  a  purely  utilitarian 
aim  ;  but  later  he  certainly  obeyed  a  mysterious  feeling 
which  induced  him  to  prepare  a  vast  future  for  Russia. 
The  Russian  people  itself  saw  at  first  nothing  but 
material  and  utilitarian  progress,  but  it  soon  under- 
stood that  the  effort  which  it  was  being  forced  to  make 
was  to  lead  it  farther  and  higher.  We  soon  attained 
to  the  conception  of  universal  human  unification.  Yes, 
the  destiny  of  Russia  is  Pan-European  and  universal. 
To  become  a  true  Russian  means,  perhaps,  only  to 
become  the  brother  of  all  men,  the  universal  man,  if 
I  may  so  express  myself.  This  division  between 
Slavophiles  and  Occidentals  is  only  the  result  of  a 
gigantic  misunderstanding.     A  true  Russian  is  as  much 


300  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

interested  in  the  destinies  of  Europe,  in  the  destinies 
of  the  whole  great  Aryan  race,  as  in  those  of  Russia. 
.  .  .  Yes,  all  Russians  in  future  will  realize  that  to. 
show  oneself  a  true  Russian  is  to  seek  a  real  basis  of 
reconciliation  of  all   the  European  contradictions." 

This  quotation  is  highly  typical  of  Dostoievsky 
himself,  who,  in  his  best  moments,  was  able  to  rise 
above  nationalistic  exclusiveness.  I  may  observe  in 
passing  that  we  cannot  draw  any  comparison  between 
the  defection  of  Dostoievsky  and  the  disillusionment 
of  Herzen,  for  between  Dostoievsky  the  member  of  the 
Fourierist  club  and  Dostoievsky  the  believer  and  con- 
servative lies  an  interval  of  several  years'  detention  in 
a  "house  of  death,"  that  is,  in  a  convict  prison.  His 
case  is  almost  pathological.  Still  more  pathological 
is  the  case  of  Gogol,  another  instance  of  which  Strakhov 
boasts.  Just  before  his  death  Gogol,  suffering  from  a 
mental  malady,  fell  into  the  power  of  a  monk,  de- 
nounced all  his  "  liberal  "  opinions,  condemned  his 
satirical  works,  burned  his  manuscripts,  and  invited 
Russian  thought  to  kneel  before  the  political  reaction 
and  the  Orthodox   Church. 

Neither  can  any  logical  comparison  be  drawn  between 
Gogol's  crisis  and  that  of  Herzen.  Herzen,  until  his 
death,  remained  the  determined  enemy  of  the  political 
and  religious  reaction.  He  adored  neither  the  autocracy 
nor  the  Orthodox  Church,  and  he  was  convinced  that 
the  "  Germano-Byzantine  "  combination  of  the  two  was 
one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  popular  woes  and 
sufferings. 

And  Leo  Tolstoy?  In  the  first  place  no  comparison 
is  possible  between  him1  and  Gogol  or  Dostoievsky. 
The  latter,  impelled  toward  conversion  by  exceptional 
circumstances,  became  good  servants  of  the  Tsar  and 
faithful  children  of  the  Church.  Tolstoy,  on  the  other 
hand,  broke  with  the  autocracy  and  with  Orthodoxy, 
and  was  persecuted  by  the  one  while  he  was  excom- 
municated by  the  other.  Moreover,  Tolstoy  never  posed 
as    the    enemy    of    European    civilization,    as    Russia's 


IDEALS  301 

hostility  toward  Europe  was  quite  foreign  to  him.  He 
thought  not  of  this  or  that  nation,  but  of  humanity 
in  general.  The  problems  which  he  attacked  were 
far  more  general  than  those  of  the  Nationalists.  They 
were  the  problems  of  progress,  of  human  civilization 
in  general,  which  Rousseau  had  already  discussed  in 
a  different  manner. 

We  may  say,  therefore,  that  Strakhov  was  mistaken 
in  interpreting  the  task  of  Russian  literature  as  a 
"  struggle  against  the  Occident,"  and  in  degrading 
it  to  the  level  of  a  narrow  nationalism. 

As  for  the  revolution  which  Herzen  underwent,  this 
was  the  origin  of  it  :  Herzen  himself  admits  that  before 
leaving  for  Europe  he  knew  nothing  of  it,  and  had 
embellished  it  with  "  marvellous  colours."  It  had  for 
him  the  attraction  of  a  "  forbidden  fruit."  (It  will  be 
remembered  that  the  Government  of  Nicolas  I  sought 
to  withdraw  Russia  from  the  intellectual  attraction  of 
Europe,  and  above  all,  from  that  of  France.)  On 
beholding  in  reality  this  Europe,  of  which  he  had 
formed  too  fair  an  image,  Herzen  was  disappointed. 
What  struck  him  and  angered  him  most  was  the 
crushing  of  the  labour  movement  in  France  in  1848 
and  the  fusillades  in  Paris.  What  an  overwhelming 
experience  for  this  man,  who  was  steeped  in  the 
Utopian  socialism  of  France,  and  who  had  devoted 
himself  to  its  cult  with  the  fervour  which  only  the 
T'ussians  can  feel  for  that  revelation  which  reaches 
them  through  the  writings  of  foreigners  !  For,  as 
Dostoievsky  said,  if  I  mistake  not,  "  what  to  a  European 
scholar  is  only  a  hypothesis  is  an  axiom  for  a  youthful 
Russian." 

Herzen  had  received  the  advanced  ideas  of  the  West 
as  absolute  dogmas,  as  axioms.  Although  he  believed 
that  he  understood  the  dialectic  algebra  of  Hegel,  the 
true  laws  of  historical  evolution  escaped  him.  He  was 
convinced  that  all  was  ready  in  Europe  for  the  reign 
of  Utopian  socialism  (which  he,  of  course,  did  not 
regard  as  Utopian).      His  hopes  having  been  deceived, 


302  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

he  asked  himself  whether  his  ideal  was  false  or  whether 
Europe  was  incapable  of  realizing  it.  We  know  the 
reply  :    he  did  not   condemn  his   ideal,   but  Europe. 

For  the  rest,  the  ideal  of  political  and  economic 
enfranchisement  professed  by  Herzen  and  his  friends 
was  not  of  Russian  origin,  but  had  come  to  them  from 
the  Occident. 

Thus  we  cannot  say  that  Herzen  was  an  anti- 
Occidentalist.  If  he  condemned  contemporary  Europe, 
it  was  because  Europe  had  failed  to  keep  its  promises, 
because  it  remained  inferior  to  its  own  ambitions. 

Herzen  did  not  extend  his  condemnation  to  Western 
ideas  ;  he  confined  it  to  men  and  to  situations.  This 
is  where  he  differed  so  profoundly  from  many  of  the 
"  penitents  "  and  "  converts,"  and  from  Dostoievsky  in 
particular,  who  followed  the  Slavophiles  in  contrast- 
ing the  "  Russian  ideal  "  with  the  "  European  ideal," 
as  two  essentially  contrary  things. 

Herzen's  "  return  to  Russia  "  was  not  an  abdica- 
tion. In  his  own  words,  he  "  was  saved  from  the 
despair  which  the  events  of  1848  would  have  inspired 
in  him  by  his  faith  in  Russia."  But  what  was  this 
faith?  Dostoievsky,  returning  from  Siberia,  became 
the  admirer  of  the  people  and  its  prejudices  ;  he  shared 
— whether  sincerely  or  not — all  its  simple  beliefs,  its 
primitive  cult  for  the  Tsar,  the  Orthodox  Church,  etc. 
Herzen  did  not  give  way  to  the  superstitions  of  the 
people  ;  he  chose  other  objects  of  admiration,  notably 
the  mir,  the  rural  commune,  in  which  he  saw  the 
embryo    of    a   future    "  socialization  "   of   Russia. 

The    real    secret    of    Herzen's    "  return    to    Russia  ' 
is    revealed    by    Herzen   himself    in   his   open    letter  to 
Michelet.      "  The  man  of  the   future   in  Russia  is   the 
moujik,  just  as   in  France  he   is   the  artisan." 

This  aphorism  dates  from  185 1,  three  years  later 
than  the  Revolution  of  1848.;  so  that  we  cannot  say 
that  Herzen  had  entirely  lost  his  confidence  in  Europe. 
He  was  disappointed  by  the  "  old  "  bourgeois  Europe, 
which   he   regarded   as    embourgeoise   to   excess  ;     but 


IDEALS  303 

he  continued   to  count  on  the   future  of  working-class 
socialism. 

It  is  especially  significant  that  Herzen  placed  the 
Russian  moujik  on  a  level  with  the  French  artisan,  in 
whom,  for  him,  the  very  idea  of  progress,  liberation, 
and  revolution  was  incarnated.  He  did  not  believe 
that  the  Russian  moujik  was  reduced  to  a  destiny 
of  submissiveness  and  resignation.  He  proposed  for 
the  moujik  the  aim  of  the  European  socialist  artisan  ; 
the  end  was  the  same  ;  the  only  difference  was  in  tin- 
ways  and  means  of  attaining  it.  Herzen  believed  that 
Russia,  thanks  to  the  existence  of  the  rural  mir,  would 
establish  the  socialist  state  without  previously  passing 
through  the  capitalist  phase  of  evolution. 

Many  more  beside  Strakhov  have  sought  to  rank 
Herzen  with  the  anti-Occidentalists,  and  above  all  with 
Dostoievsky,  but  in  vain.  There  was  nothing  of  the 
narrow-minded  nationalist  about  Herzen.  While 
Dostoievsky  often  demeaned  himself  by  anti-Semitism, 
Herzen  remained  always  superior  to  blind  chauvinism, 
even  during  the  Polish  insurrection  of  1863.  At  that 
terrible  period,  when  the  Russian  soldiers  and  the  in- 
surgents were  battling  in  the  forests  of  Poland,  he 
pronounced  in  favour  of  the  Polish  cause,  together  with 
the  whole  of  democratic  Europe,  although  he  ran  the 
risk  of  alienating  a  portion  of  his  Russian  readers,  and 
did,  indeed,  so  alienate  them. 

The  mental  and  spiritual  contrast  between  Herzen 
and  Dostoievsky  is  most  strikingly  revealed  in  that 
chapter  of  the  Diary  of  an  Author  in  which  Dostoievsky 
speaks  of  Herzen  with  barely  concealed  irritation,  calling 
him  ironically  a  "  citizen  of  the  world."  Well,  Herzen 
was  a  citizen  of  the  world  in  the  best  sense  of  the 
term,  and  as  such  he  could  not  be  either  anti-Russian 
or  anti-European.  This  he  understood  perfectly  well, 
and  he  himself  said  that  for  the  Slavophiles  he  was 
a  man  of  the  Occident,  while  for  the  zapadniki  he 
was  a  man  of  the  Orient, 


CHAPTER    VII 

I.  Dostoievsky  and  his  contradictory  qualities.  II.  The  disintegra- 
tion of  the  slavianophilstvo — Katkov,  Pobiedonostzev  and  Leontiev. 
III.  The  Occidental  sources  of  reactionary  nationalism  in  Russia. 

I 

Dostoievsky  was  the  only  Slavophile  of  the  "  second 
ban  '  who  was  able  to  maintain  the  ideals  of  that 
school  at  a  certain  level.  This,  perhaps,  was  precisely 
because  he  was  not  a  pure  Slavophile.  This  he  could 
not  be,  for  the  true  Russian  Slavophilia  is  a  product 
of  the  seigneurial  mentality,  while  Dostoievsky  was 
a  true  representative  of  the  middle-class  intellectual 
world,  the  world  of  the  daciasses,  which  constitutes, 
according  to  Klutshevsky's  remarkable  definition,  "  the 
fluid  element  of  Russian  society."  And  as  such, 
Dostoievsky  united  in  himself  ideals  which  were  often 
highly  discordant.  He  condemned  the  revolutionary 
movement  as  foreign  to  the  popular  spirit  and  anti- 
national.  He  even  went  so  far  as  to  represent  the  men 
of  the  advance-guard  as  a  sort  of  herd  of  swine,  in- 
habited by  demons,  capable  only  of  committing  insane 
actions  and  of  destroying  themselves.  At  the  same 
time,  he  remained  the  admirer  of  Bielinsky,  George 
Sand,  Byron,  and  many  other  extremely  "  subversive  " 
personalities.  He  attacked  European  civilization, 
stating  that  "  the  people  would  never  welcome  a 
Russian  as  one  of  themselves."  But  when  the  con- 
servatives demanded  that  the  "  false  light  "  of  Europe 
should  not  be  allowed  to  shine  upon  the  people,  and 
sought  to  suppress  public  instruction  as  the  instrument 
of  Europeanization,  Dostoievsky  protested  against  these 

304 


IDEALS  305 

ideas  and  proved  that  they  served  none  but  those  who 
were  exploiting  them.  "  The  character  of  the  Russians 
differs  so  greatly  from  that  of  all  the  other  European 
nations  that  their  neighbours  are  really  incapable  of 
understanding  them."  v  Russia  is  a  country  which 
resembles  Europe  in  nothing.  .  .  .  How  can  you  expect 
Russia  to  be  enthusiastic  about  a  civilization  which 
she  has   not   created?  " 

You  will  often  find  such  aphorisms  in  Dostoievsky's 
works.  And  in  addition  to  these  there  are  many  which 
are  totally  different,  and  which  reject  all  ideas  of  a 
chauvinistic  nature.  We  have  already  seen,  for  example, 
that  he  attributed  to  the  Russians  a  pan-human  and 
universal  destiny.  To  this  idea  he  frequently  returns. 
"  In  Russia,"  he  writes,  "  the  impenetrability  and  in- 
tolerance of  Europe  does  not  exist.  Russia  finds  it 
easy  to  accommodate  herself  to  universal  influences, 
to  assimilate  all  ideas.  .  .  .  The  Russian  is  able  to 
speak  all  foreign  languages,  thoroughly  seizing  the  spirit 
of  them,  grasping  the  finer  shades,  as  though  they 
were  his  own  :  a  faculty  unknown  to  the  other  European 
peoples,  at  all  events  as  a  universal  national  faculty." 
This  faculty  of  assimilation  is  greatly  valued  by 
Dostoievsky,  and — which  distinguishes  him  profoundly 
from  the  Slavophiles — he  sings  the  praises  of  Peter 
the  Great  as  an  eminent  representative  of  this  faculty, 
and  says  of  him  that  "  he  understood,  by  the  intuition 
of  genius,  the  true  mission  of  his  country,  and  the 
necessity  of  enlarging  its  field  of  action."  We  are  a 
long  way  from  Aksakov  and  his  maledictions  of  Peter 
the  Great  ! 

II 

But  in  spite  of  all  the  powers  of  his  genius, 
Dostoievsky  did  not  exercise  a  marked  influence  over 
the  younger  generation  of  his  time,  nor  over  the  Pleiad 
of  the  "  Slavophiles  of  the  first  ban"  the  brothers 
Aksakov,  Kireevsky,  Khomiakov,  and  Samarin.  In 
1862  the  "  new  master  of  nineteenth-century  thought," 

20 


306  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

the  leader  of  the  "  thinking  realists  "  and  the  positivist 
zapadnlki,  Dimitri  Pisarev,  described  the  Slavophiles 
as  "  Russian  Don  Quixotes,"  and  according  to  him  a 
sensible  man  would  not  even  waste  his  time  in  arguing 
with  them.  In  his  article  on  the  works  of  Ivan 
Kireevsky,  Pisarev  stated  that  Slavophilia  was  a  psycho- 
logical phenomenon,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Slavs 
wanted  to  love  and  believe  ;  now,  as  in  real  life 
nothing  was  deserving  of  love  or  of  faith,  they  had 
to  idealize  the  reality.  "  Slavophilia  is  the  Russian 
Quixotism  ;  where  there  are  but  windmills  the 
Slavophiles  see  armed  knights."  l 

Although  on  its  romantic  side  Slavophilia  seemed 
entirely  inoffensive,  even  to  the  Nihilists  of  i860  to 
1870,  it  contained  other  elements  which  were  leading 
it  toward  a  more  and  more  emphatic  conservatism  and 
toward  degeneration.  The  first  Slavophiles  were 
"  archaeological  liberals,"  as  some  one  has  called  them, 
and  they  demanded  the  moral  support  of  ,e  the  old 
Russia  "  in  order  to  combat  the  injustice  and  oppres- 
sion to  which  a  Prussianized  bureaucracy  was  sub- 
jecting the  people  ;  but  their  successors  were 
archaeological,  or  perhaps  we  should  say  archaic, 
reactionaries. 

This  deviation  from  the  old  Slavophilia,  caused  above 
all  by  the  development  of  the  general  reaction 
at  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Alexander  II  and  undJer 
Alexander  III,  involved  even  those  of  the  first 
Slavophiles  who  had  the  misfortune  to  survive.  Such 
was  Ivan  Aksakov  (brother  of  Konstantin),  who,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Alexander  III,  violently 
opposed  all  liberal  or  democratic  elements  as  a 
European  intrusion. 

The  leaders  of  the  Slavophiles  described  the  ,West 
as  "  rotten,"  and  proclaimed  the  necessity  of  keeping 
Russia  untouched  by  European  progress.  The  partisans 
of  official  nationalism  drew  practical  deductions  from 
this  judgment.      Katkov,   Leontiev,  and  Pobiedonostzev 

1  D.   Pisarev,  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  234  (Petersburg,  1894). 


IDEALS  307 

•onstructed  a  complete  w  true  Russian  "  system,  a  system 
which  was  Orthodox,  autocratic,  and  nationalist.1 

Katkov,  an  old  disciple  of  Hegel  and  Schelling, 
a  member  of  the  circle  of  Stankievitch  and  Bielinsky, 
and  afterwards  (from  1856  to  i860)  a  moderate  liberal 
and  Anglomaniac,  was  after  1861  the  theorist  of  the 
reaction.  Russia,  he  said,  had  no  need  of  European 
reforms  ;  she  needed  a  strong  State,  based  on  national 
union,  a  single  language,  a  single  religion,  and  the 
rural  mir .  No  adhesion  of  Russia  to  the  ideals  of 
the  Occident  was  possible  or  desirable.  Instead  of 
striving  to  Europeanize  Russia,  an  attempt  should  be 
made  to  Russify  all  the  heterogeneous  elements  in- 
habiting the  Empire,  which  were  already  affected  by 
the  policy  of  '  Europeanization."  The  execution  of 
this  programme  would  mean  a  desperate  struggle 
against  all  the  non-Russian  and  unorthodox  nations 
(especially  against  the  Poles  and  Finns)  and  against 
the  world  of  thought  (and  especially  against  the 
students),  the  builders  of  Occidental  chimera?,  who  were 
strangers  to  the  true  Russia. 

Pobiedonostzev  and  Leontiev  expounded  more  par- 
ticularly the  "  moral  "  and  religious  side  of  the  con- 
servative and  nationalist  system.  In  his  Muscovite 
Miscellany,  Pobiedonostzev  attributed  a  divine  origin 
to  the  autocracy.  "  One  of  the  falsest  political  prin- 
ciples," he  wrote  therein,  '  is  that  of  the  sovereignty 
of  the  people."  Such  was  the  false  idea  which  had 
'  unhappily  been  diffused  since  the  French  Revolu- 
tion "  ;  the  idea  that  "  all  power  should  emanate  from 
the  people  and  should  be  subject  to  the  popular  will." 
Hence  was  derived  "  the  theory  of  parliamentarism, 
which  hitherto  has  led  into  error  the  mass  of  those 
who  are  known  as  intellectuals,  and  which  has  pene- 
trated, unhappily,  our  crazy  Russian  heads."  "We 
find  in  France  an  example  of  the  bad  effects  of 
parliamentarism,"    says    Pobiedonostzev.        '  In    France 

1  Compare    Orthodoxy,  Autocracy,  and    Nationalism  with    Liberty, 
Equality,  and  Fraternity  (Tr.). 


308  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

nationalist  thought  is  greatly  demoralized,  and  the 
political  sense  of  the  whole  nation  is  enfeebled." 
England  "  is  already  attacked  by  the  same  malady."  ' 
Constitutional  and  parliamentary  institutions  and 
guarantees — this  is  the  evil  from  which  Russia  must 
be  saved,  says  Pobiedonostzev,  echoing  the  old  Slavo- 
philes. But  while  Aksakov  and  his  co-religionists 
allowed  the  people  "  liberty  of  opinion,"  Pobiedonostzev 
opposes  this  liberty.  Abstractions  and  general  prin- 
ciples, especially  those  inculcating  liberty,  equality,  and 
fraternity,  "  with  all  their  applications  and  ramifica- 
tions," are  to  him  detestable.  He  opposes  the  Press, 
the  schools,  and  all  that  might  contribute  to  the  awaken- 
ing and  enfranchisement  of  thought.  The  only  educa- 
tion which  is  truly  national  and  admissible  in  Russia 
consists  in  "  maintaining  mankind  in  rigorous  submis- 
sion to  order." 2  This  is  the  business  of  the  State 
authority,  which  is   "  great,  terrible,  and  holy." 

The  "  true  Russian  "  conservative  doctrines  were 
most  completely  expressed  by  Konstantin  Leontiev 
(183 1 -91).  In  his  youth  he  was  an  adept  in  "  George- 
Sandism,"  which  he  later  declared  to  be  "diabolical." 
Then  he  became  a  convert  to  Orthodox  mysticism, 
and  inaugurated  the  theory  of  Russian  Byzantism. 
In  the  domain  of  morals  he  prescribed  the  abso- 
lute submission  of  the  individual  to  the  laws  of 
the  Church — not  of  the  Christian  Church  in  general, 
but  of  the  Orthodox  Church.  For  him  Christianity  was 
not  love  and  charity,  but  the  fear  of  God.  Human 
nature  is  corrupt  and  evil.  Only  a  salutary  fear,  a 
severe  discipline,  and  punishment  can  correct  it.  "It 
is  a  lie  to  represent  the  idea  of  God  as  being  that  of 
love.  Faith  in  God  is  a  yoke  which  should  be  borne 
with  humility.  Autocracy  is  a  Divine  institution,  and 
the  power  of  the  Tsar  should  inspire  the  same  fear 
in  his  subjects  as  that  which  the  power  of  God  inspires 
in  believers." 

1  K.  Pobiedonostzev,  Movkowskii  Sbornik  {The  Muscovite  Miscellany), 
pp.  30-31  (2nd  ed.,  Moscow,  1896).  2  Ibid.  p.  86. 


IDEALS  309 

Science  and  the  education  of  the  people  are  useless!, 
because  they  do  not  lead  to  the  knowledge  of  God  ; 
they  are  even  harmful,  because  they  destroy  the 
religious  conscience.  All  progress,  all  novelties  are 
superfluous  and  maleficent,  not  excepting  even  the 
mere  knowledge  of  reading  and  writing. 

Leontiev  invented  a  theory  of  the  ages  of  humanity. 
In  Europe,  the  period  of  the  great  migrations  of  the 
peoples  was  youth  ;  the  Middle  Ages  was  maturity. 
At  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  with  "  atheist  " 
philosophy  and  the  Revolution,  Europe  entered  into 
decrepitude  and  is  approaching  death.  The  same  fate 
threatens  Russia  ;  to  avoid  it,  Russia  must  be  "  con- 
gealed," must  be  maintained  in  a  refrigerated  condition, 
so  that  she  shall  be  unable  to  live  and  develop.  Down 
with  all   reforms  :    away  with  Europeanization  !  ' 

Happily,  Leontiev's  fantastic  ideal  was  not  realized  ; 
economic  evolution,  on  the  one  hand,  and  European 
penetration,  on  the  other,  have  relegated  it  to  the 
world  of  dreams,  and  Russia,  frozen  at  the  end  iof 
the  nineteenth  century,  is  now,  in  the  early  years  of 
the  twentieth  century,  thawing  and  beginning  to  live 
again. 

Ill 

It  is  particularly  interesting  to  note  that  national 
and  anti-Occidental  conservatism  owe  their  existence 
very  largely  to  that  Europe  which  their  prophets  so 
hate  and  detest.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  first 
Slavophiles  were  the  nurslings  of  German  philosophy. 
Those  that  followed  them  were  even  more  dependent 
upon  Europe.  Vladimir  Soloviev,  with  his  remarkable 
knowledge  of  Occidental  philosophy,  was  able  to  demon- 
strate this  fact  with  ease  and  in  a  manner  which  left 
nothing  to  be  discussed. 

Thus  the  Slavophiles  of  the  second  ban— that  is,  of 

1  The  conceptions  of  Leontiev  and  other  anti-Occidental  reaction- 
aries have  been  excellently  described  by  Professor  Masaryk  {Europa 
und  Russland,  vol.  ii.  Part  IV). 


310  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century — found  their 
gospel  and  their  textbook  in  Danilevsky's  Russia  and 
Europe,  a  work  which  caused  a  great  sensation  and 
was  accepted  as  essentially  original.  It  depicts  the 
*'  types  of  civilization  "  which  characterize  the  develop- 
ment of  the  various  peoples.  No  communion  is  possible 
between  these  "  types/'  which  are  separated  one  from 
another  as  though  by  impassable  walls.  Hence  it 
follows  that  Russia,  representing  a  particular  type  of 
civilization,  will  never  be  able  to  "  Europeanize  ' 
herself. 

Now  this  theory,  as  Vladimir  Soloviev  has  proved, 
is  borrowed  in  its  entirety  from  the  German  historian 
Heinrich  Riickert.  Danilevsky's  work  is  merely  'a 
Russian  copy  of  the  German  original,"  asserts  Soloviev, 
and  he  proves  his  accusation  by   quotations. 

*'  The  supposedly  Russian  and  original  theory  which 
was  to  annihilate  all  European  theories  of  the  science 
of  history  is  in  reality  only  a  poor  copy  of  a  German 
theory,  published  twelve  years  earlier.  Of  course,  the 
theory  of  the  German  scientist  is  neither  improved 
nor  worsened  for  being  restated  by  a  Russian  writer, 
and  by  him  enlarged  by  means  of  pseudo-patriotic 
additions.  But  those  conceptions  of  Danilevsky's  which 
amount  to  a  denial  of  our  spiritual  ties  with  Europe 
are  gravely  compromised  by  the  fact  that  in  order  to 
justify  them  in  theory,  or  rather  to  seem1  to  do  so,  he 
was  forced  to  borrow  one  of  the  second-rate  products 
of  the  German  mind."  r 

For  the  nationalists  of  the  Extreme  Right,  Katkov, 
Pobiedonostzev,  and  Leontiev,  the  essential  and  most 
"  national  "  portion  of  their  ideas  was  provided,  as 
Soloviev  has  shown,  by  the  Catholic  reactionaries,  and 
in  particular  by  Joseph  de  Maistre. 

"  The  Russian  disciples  of  Joseph  de  Maistre,  instead 
of  speaking  in  the  name  of  their  master,  have  spoken 
in  the  name  of  the  Russian  people,  who,  however,  have 

■  V.   Soloviev,  "A   German  original  and  a  Russian  copy"  (Works, 

AOl.  V.  p.  294). 


IDEALS  311 

never  or  in  any  manner  expressed  any  sympathy  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  Savoyard  squire.  In  our  past  and 
in  our  present  there  are  assuredly  many  things  which 
correspond  with  the  principles  of  Joseph  de  Maistre. 
But  the  truth  is  that  the  Russian  people  as  a  whole 
has  never  constructed  absolute  truths  out  of  certain 
episodes  or  characteristics  of  its  life.  It  has  never 
made  idols  of  its  national  defects,  or  of  the  necessities 
to  which  it  has  been  subjected.  Yes  ;  individuality 
and  the  social  relations  are  not  greatly  developed  in 
Russia  ;  the  precepts  of  law  and  justice  are  not  yet 
rooted  in  our  minds,  and  because  of  this  (as  some 
one  has  remarked)  honest  men  are  more  uncommon 
than  saints  in  Russia.  All  this  is  true.  The  faithful 
votaries  of  Joseph  de  Maistre  believed  that  things  must 
be  so  ;  but  does  the  Russian  people  believe  it  also?  That 
is  another   question."  ' 

As  Soloviev  very  justly  observes,  the  only  originality 
of  the  pseudo-nationalist  and  anti-Occidentalist  thinkers 
of  Russia  is  that  it  seeks  to  clothe  European  thought 
in   a    tattered    Tartaro-Byzantine    "  kaftan." 

1  V.   Soloviev,   "Slavophilia   and   its  degeneration"  (Works,  vol.  v. 
p.  220). 


CHAPTER    VIII 

I.  The  tapadnitshevstvo  triumphant.  II.  Nihilism— Its  European 
origin— Dobrolubov  and  Pisarev— The  "  destruction  of  aesthetics  " 
— Nihilism  and  anarchism — Pisarev's  opinion  of  the  French  and 
English— The  social  problem  and  "aesthetics."  III.  Tshernyshevsky 
—His  materialism— The  popularization  of  Occidental  ideas— 
Tshernyshevsky  and  Feuerbach— The  secularization  of  Russian 
thought — English  influences. 


To-day  Slavophilia  may  be  regarded  as  dead.  It  is 
true  that  from  time  to  time  a  Russian  politician  or 
author  attempts  to  exhume  its  remains  and  warm  it 
back  to  life  by  means  of  heady  rhetoric.  But  such 
attempts  are  idle,  for  the  social,  economic,  and  political 
bases  of  the  old  Slavophilia  have  disappeared.  They 
no  longer  exist  either  in  the  interior  of  Russia,  where 
bourgeois  relations  have  taken  the  place  of  the  old 
"  patriarchal  "  system,  nor  in  the  rest  of  the  Slav  world. 
This  outer  Slav  world  is  more  fully  Europeanized  than 
Russia  herself. 

Lately  an  attempt  was  made  to  revive  the  Slavophile 
formulas  in  order  to  embellish  the  Imperialist  tendencies 
professed  in  certain  circles  (happily  not  numerous)  of 
the  Russian  bourgeoisie  ;  notably  the  claim  to  hegemony 
in  the  Balkans  and  the  conquest  of  Constantinople, 
which  the  speeches  of  the  Neo-Slavophiles  represented 
as  the  "  communion  "  of  Russia  with  the  Divine  Wisdom 
(in  allusion  to  St.  Sophia  of  Byzantium).  But  orators  and 
audience  were  well  aware  how  little  all  this  archaic 
phraseology  was  adapted  to  the  tendencies  of  modern 
Imperialism.      No   one   will  be  able   to   revive  the  old 

812 


IDEALS  313 

Slavophilia.  Occidentalism  remains  the  sole  master  of 
the  battlefield.  But  the  zapadnitshestvo  of  to-day  is 
no  longer  the  Occidentalism  of  Bielinsky's  days  and 
Herzen's.  That  also  has  passed  through  a  develop- 
ment which  has  not  led  it  to  its  death,  as  was  the  case 
with  the  old  Slavophilia,  but  which  has  subjected  it  to 
great  transformations. 

Let  us  glance  at  this  latter  phase  of  its  history. 


II 

The  great  poet  Nekrassov  has  said  of  the  Russian 
intellectual:  — 

What  the  latest  book  has  told  him 

Will  remain  on  the  surface  of  his  heart. 

This  means  that  he  will  always  be  in  love  with  the  last 
idea  with  which  he  has  made  acquaintance,  and  that 
previously   acquired  ideas   will  be  easily   forgotten. 

There  is  an  undeniable  justice  in  this  observation  ; 
the  currents  of  thought  in  Russia  often  displace  one 
another  with  extreme  suddenness.  The  history  of 
Russian  Occidentalism  proves  this  statement,  but  it 
also  shows  us  that  in  spite  of  these  frequent  and  sudden 
changes  of  what  has  for  a  moment  prevailed,  something 
always  remains,  I  do  not  say  immovably,  but  it  does 
remain,  more  or  less  stable,  and  it  constitutes  the 
national  peculiarity  of  our  Occidentalism. 

The  first  great  turning  on  the  road  followed  by  the 
zapadniki  was  reached  at  the  "  Period  of  the  Great 
Reforms,"  or  during  the  "  'sixties,"  which  formed  the 
period  so  named  in  Russia. 

This  was  the  period  of  "  Nihilism."  In  my  Modern 
Russia  I  have  described  the  general  character  of  Russian 
Nihilism,  and  its  social  origins.  But  I  have  not  spoken 
there  of  the  European  influences  which  have  affected 
it,  and  which  were  extremely  potent.  One  may  even  say 
that  the  basis  of  Nihilism  is  a  determined  struggle  of 


314  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

European  ideas  against  the  old  principles  and  ancient 
forms  of  Russian  life.1 

Nihilism  had  three  protagonists :  Dobrolubov, 
Pisarev.  and  Tshernyshevsky.  All  three  were  con- 
vinced Occidentalists.  Dobrolubov  (born  in  1836,  died 
of  phthisis  in  1861),  a  literary  critic  of  high  talent, 
was  the  disciple  of  European  authors.  One  of  his 
friends  said  that  "  Dobrolubov,  during  the  years  which 
determined  the  shaping  of  his  intellect,  was  nourished 
upon  our  great  Occidental  masters.  Books  and  articles 
written  in  Russian  might  please  him,  might  delight  him, 
but  they  could  not  possibly  furnish  him  with  the  know- 
ledge and  the  information  which  he  owed  to  his  reading." 

One  may  object  that  Dobrolubov  was  not  a  true 
"  Nihilist  "  and  "  negator."  These  qualifications  would 
apply  rather  to  Pisarev  (1841-68).  Dead  at  the  age 
of  twenty-seven,  Pisarev  wrote  only  for  nine  years, 
of  which  four  were  passed  in  prison  (on  account  of  the 
publication  of  a  "subversive"  article).  In  this  brief 
space  of  time  he  succeeded  in  writing  some  thousands 
of  pages  which  were  destined  to  propagate  "  Nihilism," 
and  pisarev  shtshina  has  become  synonymous  for 
Nihilism    par    excellence. 

sWhat   was    Pisarev's  Nihilism? 

In  the  first  place,  he  rejected  what  was,  for  the 
zapadniki,  the  most  conspicuous  trait  of  the  preceding 
generation:  idealistic  philosophy  and  "aesthetics." 
Pisarev  displays  a  profound  contempt  for  "  the  husk 
of  Hegelianism  "  with  which  the  ideals  of  Bielinsky, 
his  predecessor,  were  covered.  But  it  was  especially 
"  asstheticism  "  which  he  attacked.  In  his  efforts  to 
destroy  it  he  went  so.  far  as  to  describe  our  great 
poet  Pushkin  as  a  "  sublime  cretin"  and  asserted  that 
Beethoven  had  the  same  social  value  as  a  skilful  chess 
or  billiard  player. 

1  I  insist  on  this  point  because  certain  foreign  writers  have  mis- 
understood the  real  nature  of  Russian  Nihilism,  and  have  represented 
it  as  rejecting  all  European  culture  in  general  and  all  French  culture 
in  particular.  M.  Haumant  has  not  avoided  this  error  (see  pp.  500-3 
of  his  Culture  fratifaise  en  Russie). 


IDEALS  315 

However,  M.  Haumant  commits  a  sensible  error  in 
comparing  Pisarev's  Nihilism  to  negation  for  nega- 
tion's sake,  or  even  to  the  anarchism  of  Bakunin. 
Pisarev  was  nol  by  any  means  an  anarchist,  and 
had  no  idea  of  contesting  the  raison  d'itre  of  the  State. 
This  is  clearly  proved  by  his  article  on  the  Historical 
Ideas  of  Auguste  Comte,  in  which  the  parallel  estab- 
lished by  Comte  between  the  political  institutions  oi 
continental  Europe  and  those  of  England  is  compared 
with  the  parallel  drawn  by  Buckle.  Now,  Pisarev 
ranged  himself  on  the  side  of  Buckle,  and  wrote  as 
follows  : — 

"  The  Anglomania  cultivated  in  France  by  the  dis- 
ciples of  Montesquieu  and  the  co-religionists  of  Guizot, 
and  with  us  by  a  certain  school  of  moralists  and  pro- 
fessors, has  excited  an  extremely  strong  reaction  against 
it,  which  in  its  turn  has  gone  too  far,  or  at  least  has 
assumed  a  false  direction.  Of  course,  it  is  absurd  to 
prescribe  the  British  Constitution  as  a  panacea  for  all 
social  evils  ;  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  transplant 
upon  the  European  Continent  institutions  under  whose 
protection  all  the  beauties  of  a  colossal  pauperism  have 
blossomed.  It  was  necessary  to  denounce,  with  the 
utmost  energy,  the  social  maladies  of  England,  in 
which  these  doctrinaires  beheld  a  Paradise.  But  it 
would  not  have  sufficed  to  content  oneself  with  mere 
reprobation.  It  was  enough  merely  to  say,  without  more 
ado,  that  there  was  much  evil  in  England,  without 
inferring  that  this  evil  did  not  exist,  or  was  less,  on  the 
Continent.  To  set  any  continental  country  whatsoever 
above  England,  or  even  to  pass  over  the  enormous 
advantages  which  distinguished  England  from  all  other 
European  countries,  would  have  been  to  fall  into  a  very 
perilous  and  harmful  paradox.  ...  To  convince  one- 
self of  this  it  will  suffice  to  glance  at  the  gravest  evil 
of  English  life — its  pauperism.  The  condition  of  the 
British  labourer  is  extremely  painful,  it  is  true.  But,  in 
the  first  place,  the  position  of  the  French  working-man 
is  no  better  ;    secondly,   in  England   there  are  incom- 


316  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

parably  greater  resources  for  a  satisfactory  solution  of 
the  labour  question  than  in  France,  or  in  any  other 
continental  country.  These  conditions  are  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  English  are  in  the  habit  of  managing  their 
own  affairs,  and  enjoy  the  greatest  political  and  civil 
liberty . 

"  It  has  often  happened  to  me  to  read  or  hear  disser- 
tations as  to  the  indifference  with  which  a  man  dying  of 
starvation  would  regard  political  rights  and  guarantees. 
These  dissertations  are  correct  if  the  man  is  literally 
dying  of  starvation  or  some  other  evil  ;  for  example,  of 
dropsy  or  phthisis.  In  this  case,  indeed,  he  is  not 
interested  in  a  Constitution,  nor  in  political  meetings, 
nor  in  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act,  nor  in  the  liberty  of  the 
Press.  But  for  a  man  who  is  living  and  who  enjoys  a 
certain  degree  of  health,  who  struggles  like  a  fish  under 
the  ice,  who  makes  every  effort  to  better  his  position 
and  to  escape  from  a  crushing  poverty,  the  laws  and 
customs  of  the  country  in  which  he  must  live  and  labour 
are  of  great  importance."  l 

As  we  see,  Pisarev  has  nothing  in  common  with  the 
anarchists,  who  are  adversaries  of  the  principle  of  the 
State,  and  for  whom  all  States  and  all  Constitutions  are 
the  same. 

In  the  same  article  Pisarev  compares  the  political 
mentality  of  the  French  with  that  of  the  English  (we 
must  remember  that  this  article  was  written  in  1865, 
that  is,  in  the  time  of  Napoleon  III)  : — 

"  The  French  know  how  to  conquer,  but  after  victory, 
when  the  last  barricade  has  disappeared,  they  hasten  to 
put  all  their  hopes  in  one  father  or  protector,  no  matter 
whom,  who,  to  reward  their  simplicity,  will  not  fail  to 
force  them,  a  few  years  later,  to  erect  new  barricades, 
which  will  evoke  new  hopes  and  a  new  ingenuousness. 
.  .  .  Until  that  day  the  Frenchman  is  reduced  to 
repeating  :  '  If  the  Committee  knew  !  If  the  Consul 
knew  !  If  the  Emperor  knew  !  If  the  King  knew  I 
If  the  President  knew  !  '  .  .  .As  for  the  Englishman,  he 
1  Pisarev,  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  432. 


IDEALS  317 

is  familiar  with  rights,  which  are  necessary  to  him,  to 
such  a  point  that  without  them  life  itself  is  impossible 
to  him."  ' 

To  complete  our  demonstration  that  Pisarev,  what- 
ever one  may  wish  to  discern  in  him,  was  not  in  any 
case  an  anarchist,  I  will  quote  a  passage  from  his 
article  on  The  Realists,  which  is  his  profession  of 
faith  : — 

1  To  arouse  public  opinion  and  to  form  conscious 
leaders  of  popular  labour,  this  is  to  open  to  the  labour- 
ing majority  the  wide  and  fruitful  road  of  intellectual 
development.  But  to  accomplish  these  two  tasks,  on 
which  the  whole  future  of  the  people  depends,  it  is 
necessary  to  act  exclusively  upon  the  cultivated  classes 
of  society.  The  fate  of  the  people  is  decided  not  in 
the  primary   schools   but   in  the   Universities." 2 

Wherein  does  this  intellectual  aristocracy  resemble 
the  glorification  of  "  holy  ignorance  "  which  we  find 
in  Bakunin? 

And  why  does  Pisarev  fall  foul  of  "  aesthetics  "? 
Because  he  prefers  positive  science  and  social  utili- 
tarianism. 

"  vWe  shall  try  to  destroy  sestheticism  in  order  to  con- 
centrate the  attention  and  the  intellectual  energies  of 
society  upon  a  minimum  of  imperious  and  unavoidable 
objectives  of  primordial  importance,"  writes  Pisarev. 
These  objectives  are,  on  the  one  hand,  the  destruction 
of  all  routine  and  all  prejudices,  and  on  the  other  hand 
the  moral  and  material  uplifting  of  the  masses.  All 
this  may  be  accomplished  by  the  aid  of  the  positive  and 
natural  sciences.  Pisarev  sings  a  veritable  hymn  in 
honour  of  scientific  naturalism,  and  hopes  that 
"  aesthetics  will  transform  itself  into  a  dependency 
of  physiology  and  hygiene,  as  alchemy  has  become 
chemistry  and  astrology  astronomy."  He  wrote  articles 
in  which  he  endeavoured  to  popularize  the  theories  of 
contemporary  European  "  naturalists  "  and  to  preach 
the  study  of  Buchner,  Moleschott,  Huxley,  Tyndall,  Carl 

1  Pisarev,  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  435.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  iv.  p.  140. 


318  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

Vogt,  Comte,  Darwin,  and  other  Occidental  materialists 
and  positivists. 

As  for  aesthetics  and  art,  one  should  not  make  too 
much  of  them,  as  for  the  most  part  they  only  end  in 
a  loss  of  time.  Now,  time  should  be  economized, 
especially    in    Russia,    a    poor    and    backward    country. 

We  must  admit  that  Pisarev  was  to  a  certain  extent 
right.  The  preceding  generation  of  Russian  Occi- 
dentalists  were  concerned  to  excess  with  abstractions 
and  big  phrases,  and  all  that  is  implied  by  the  term 
"  aesthetics."  (And  the  big  phrases  of  the  Europeanized 
seigneurs  were  only  too  often  glaringly  inconsistent  with 
serfdom  and  the  condition  of  the  people.  Nekrassov 
well  depicted  the  character  of  this  generation  in  a  poem 
describing  those  who 

.  .  .  Wander  through  the  world 
Seeking  some  gigantic  task, 
Because  the  heritage  of  opulent  fathers 
Has  exempted  them  from  petty  toil. 

Was  Russian  society  to  abandon  itself  to  the  dreams  of 
an  Italian  lazzarone,  or  to  acquire  the  realistic  and 
practical  common  sense  of  the  American?  asked 
Pisarev,  and  he  himself  pronounced  in  favour  of  realism 
and  practical  common  sense. 

In  reality,  however,  there  was  no  resemblance  between 
the  Russian  Nihilists,  or  Pisarev  himself,  and  the  typical 
Yankee.  Despite  all  their  pleas  for  materialism,  despite 
all  their  industrious  endeavours  to  appear  "  hard," 
"  egoistic,"  and  "  materialistic,"  they  remained  the  true 
sons  of  their  fathers,   idealists  of  the  "  'forties." 

Pisarev  wished  to  condemn  and  annihilate  aestheti- 
cism.  By  what  means?  He  "based  his  realistic  con- 
ception of  science  and  art,"  according  to  his  own 
admission,  on  the  following  idea  of  Pierre  Leroux: 
"  From  my  lofty  point  of  view  the  poets  are  those  who, 
from  period  to  period,  express  the  woes  of  humanity, 
just  as  the  philosophers  are  those  who  concern  them- 
selves with  healing  and  safeguarding  humanity."      In- 


IDEALS  319 

spired  by  this  idea,  Pisarev  stated  that  "  one  must 
always  draw  the  attention  of  society  to  economic  and 
social  problems,  systematically  opposing  and  condemn- 
ing all  that  diverts  the  intellectual  energies  of  cultivated 
persons  from  their  mission.  If  among  the  objects  which 
distract  them  we  find  art  in  general,  or  certain  branches 
of  art,  it  should  be  understood  as  a  matter  of  course  that 
art  also  is  to  be  opposed  and  condemned." 

Accused  by  his  adversaries  of  "  vandalism,"  Pisarev 
replied  as  follows  : — 

"  If  you  choose  to.  tell  me  that  Beethoven's  sonatas 
ennoble,  uplift,  and  exalt  humanity,  etc.,  I  shall  advise 
you  to  tell  these  fables  to  others,  not  to  me,  who  will 
never  credit  them.  Each  of  my  readers  knows,  no  doubt, 
a  number  of  true  melomaniacs  and  profound  connois- 
seurs of  music,  who,  despite  all  their  love  for  the  great 
art,  and  despite  the  depth  of  their  musical  knowledge, 
remain  frivolous,   pitiable,  good-for-nothing  creatures." 

It  is  a  curious  thing  that  Pisarev's  theory,  as  the 
reader  will  see,  resembles  Tolstoy's.  For  Tolstoy  also, 
at  a  later  period,  rejected  aesthetics  in  the  interest  of  the 
suffering  masses.  He,  however,  went  farther  than 
Pisarev,  condemning  science  also  as  a  useless  thing 
"which  leads  men  astray." 

Vladimir  Soloviev  used  to  say  that  the  Russian 
Nihilists  had  a  logic  all  their  own,  and  that  they 
deduced  their  social  programme  from  their  naturalistic 
materialism  with  the  aid  of  peculiar  "  syllogisms,"  such 
as  the  following:  "Man  is  descended  from  the  ape. 
Therefore  our  duty  is  to  sacrifice  ourselves  for  the 
happiness  of   the  people." 

This  pleasantry  is  not  very  far  from  the  truth. 

To  complete  the  portrait  of  the  "  Nihilists  "  it  must 
be  mentioned  that  personally  they  led  an  extremely 
modest  and  virtuous  life.  Pisarev,  the  chief  of  the 
"  negators  "  and  the  "  destroyers,"  the  incarnation  of 
all  mortal  sins  (it  was  thus  that  the  reactionaries 
regarded  him),  was  an  affectionate  and  respectful  son, 
and  his    principal   work  was   dedicated   to   his  mother. 


320  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

Tshernyshevsky,  at  the  age  of  twenty-four,  wishing  to 
marry,  asked  himself  what  he  would  do  if  his  fiance'e 
did  not  please  his  mother  :  could  he  marry  against  his 
mother's  will?  And  what  did  he  decide?  To  kill 
himself  in  such  a  case,  as  he  could  not  vex  his  aged 
mother,  yet  could  not  live  without  the  woman  he  loved. 
But  we  must  speak  of  Tshernyshevsky  separately. 

Ill 

Nicholas  Gavrilovitsh  Tshernyshevsky  was  born  in 
1828.  At  the  age  of  twenty-five  he  had  made  a  name 
in  literature.  From  1855  to  1862  he  was  one  of  the 
most  conspicuous  leaders  of  the  intellectual  and  social 
movement  in  Russia.  In  1862  he  was  arrested  for  the 
"  crime  "  of  subversive  opinions,  and  was  condemned 
to  fourteen  years'  hard  labour  and  life-long  deportation 
to  Siberia.  Only  in  1883  did  he  receive  the  authoriza- 
tion to  return  to  "  European  Russia." 

He  died  six  years  later,  in  1889.  Although  Pisarev's 
influence  was  ephemeral,  Tshernyshevsky's  has  endured 
until  the  present  day.  During  the  last  few  years  a 
number  of  historians,  critics,  litterateurs,  sociologists, 
and  economists  have  undertaken  a  complete  study  of 
his  works  and  his  ideas,  and  have  arrived  at  the  con- 
clusion that  "  his  life  belongs  to  history,  and  his  name 
will  never  cease  to  recall  itself  to  all  those  who  are 
interested  in  the  destinies  of  Russian  literature,  and 
who  are  able  to  appreciate  wit,  talent,  knowledge, 
courage,   and    abnegation."  l 

The  prevailing  influence  in  Tshernyshevsky's  mental 
life  was  that  of  the  ideas  of  the  European  vanguard. 
In  general,  the  period  of  '  nihilism  "  was  the  period 
when  the  Occidental  spirit  was  completely  triumphant 
in  Russia — the  spirit  of  materialism  and  positivism, 
which  under  Nicolas  I  was  regarded  by  State  and 
Church   as  contrary  to  the  Orthodox  doctrine  and  the 

1  G.  Plekhanov,  Ar.  G.  Tshernyshevsky  (Petersburg,  1910),  p.  78. 
This  large  volume  gives  a  complete  analysis  of  Tshernyshevsky's 
ideas. 


IDEALS  321 

autocratic  system,  and  which  thereby  received  its  most 
undoubted  titles  to  success.  After  the  Crimean  disaster 
the  police  supervision  of  the  intelligence  of  Russia  was 
slightly  relaxed  ;  the  educated  youth  of  Russia,  by  a 
wholly  natural  reaction,  hastened  to  pluck  the  forbidden 
fruit  of  European  thought.  Positivism  and  material- 
ism, then  known  by  the  common  title  of  realism,  became 
a  powerful  weapon  of  warfare  against  the  religious 
prejudices    supported   by    official    pressure. 

But  the  materialism  of  the  Nihilists  was  not  of 
uniform  quality.  In  Pisarev  it  took  the  form  of  "  naive 
realism,"  everything  being  proscribed  that  was  not  jus- 
tified by  the  immediate  statements  of  the  natural 
sciences.  Of  all  the  social  sciences,  Pisarev  admitted 
the  necessity  only  of  anthropology,  geography,  and 
statistics.  As  for  philosophy,  he  regarded  it  with  superb 
disdain.  Even  the  materialistic  philosophy  of  Feuer- 
bach  appeared  to  him  useless  and  superfluous,  fit  only 
for  '  those  who  seek  to  erect  a  whole  building  with 
a  score  of  bricks." 

Tshernyshevsky  did  not  share  these  opinions  ;  he 
did  not  seek  to  confine  thought  within  the  narrow  limits 
of  the  exclusively  naturalistic  positivism  of  the  pisa- 
revshtshina.  But  he  agreed  with  Pisarev  as  to  the  task 
imposed  on  Russian  writers  and  scientists.  He  used 
to  say  that  in  the  West  men  have  the  right  to  serve  pure 
art  or  pure  science.  "  Bacon,  Descartes,  Galileo,  Leib- 
nitz, Newton,  Humboldt,  Liebig,  Cuvier,  and  Faraday 
worked  steadily  on,  thinking  of  science  in  general,  not 
of  what  such  or  such  a  country,  their  native  land, 
required  at  a  given  moment.  We  do  not  know  and  we 
do  not  ask  ourselves  if  they  loved  their  country.  By 
virtue  of  their  works  they  are  cosmopolitan.  It  is  the 
same  with  many  of  the  great  Western  poets."  Tsherny- 
shevsky names  Shakespeare,  Ariosto,  Corneille,  Goethe. 
"  Their  names,"  he  says,  "  make  us  think  of  their 
artistic  merit  ;  not  of  any  special  and  predominant 
devotion    to    their    native   countries." 

Matters    are   very    different    in   Russia.      "  For    the 

21 


322  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

moment  a  Russian  has  only  one  fashion  of  really  serving 
the  lofty  ideals  of  truth,  art,  and  science  :  namely,  to 
work  at  diffusing  them  throughout  his  country.  The 
time  will  come  when  in  Russia  also,  as  elsewhere, 
thinkers  and  artists  will  devote  themselves  exclusively 
to  science  and  art  ;  but  as  long  as  we  are  not  on  the 
same  level  as  the  more  advanced  nations  there  is  another 
task  which  must  be  dearer  to  each  of  us :  to  contribute 
according  to  his  strength  to  continue  what  Peter  the 
Great  began.  This  task  has  hitherto  demanded,  and 
in  all  probability  will  demand  for  a  long  time  yet,  all 
the  moral  and  intellectual  forces  of  the  best  endowed 
of  Russia's  children."  ' 

Tshernyshevsky,  who  suggested  that  the  immediate 
and  effective  duty  of  Russian  thinkers  was  to  popularize 
European  thought,  and  who  himself  undertook  this  duty, 
showed  a  much  greater  breadth  of  mind  in  his  manner 
of  fulfilling  it  than  did  Pisarev.  For  example,  he  did 
justice  to  the  philosophy  of  Hegel.  He  very  truly  said 
of  Hegel  that  "  his  principles  were  extremely  ample  and 
vigorous  ;    his  deductions  were  narrow  and  impotent." 

More  particularly  did  Tshernyshevsky  adopt  Hegel's 
maxims  "  that  there  exists  no  such  thing  as  abstract 
truth  "  ;  "  truth  is  concrete  "  ;  2  and  that  "  one  cannot 
judge  of  good  and  evil  without  taking  into  account  the 
circumstances  in  which  a  given  phenomenon  occurs." 
The  Hegelian  idea  of  constant  change,  caused  by  the 
internal  contradictions  contained  by  every  phenomenon 
and  every  condition,  was  also  accepted  by  Tsherny- 
shevsky. But  he  relied  especially  on  Feuerbach,  and, 
as  he  himself  declared,  he  sought  "  to  apply  Feuer- 
bach's  fundamental  ideas  to  the  solution  of  various 
problems." 

The  most  important  of  these  ideas  was  that  of  the 
unity  of  the  human  being:  this  implied  the  rejection  of 
the  old  dualistic  conception  which  divided  "  soul  "  from 
"  body,"  the  "  spiritual  "  from  the  "  material  "  element. 

1  Tshernyshevsky,  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  120  (Petersburg,  1907). 
■  Hegel  himself  does  not  always  abide  by  this  rule. 


IDEALS  323 

For  Tshernyshevsky,  as  for  Feuerbach,  there  was  only 
one  "  sole  human  nature,  real  and  unique,"  and  the 
"  spiritual  "  life  of  man  was  only  the  "  subjective 
aspect  "    of   certain    objective   and   material   facts. 

The  recognition  of  such  a  principle  had  capital  results 
for  Russian  thought,  for  it  struck  a  terrible  blow  at  the 
Orthodox  Byzantine  ideology,  which  saw  two  principles 
in  man:  the  one  "celestial,"  holy,  spiritual,  the  other 
"  terrestrial,"  diabolic  and  material  ;  an  idea  which 
was  the  basis  of  the  ascetic  doctrine  of  submission  to 
the  Divine  Will,  to  the  power  of  God  and  His  repre- 
sentatives on  earth:     spiritual  and  temporal  authorities. 

The  materialistic  monism  proclaimed  by  Tsherny- 
shevsky was  thus  a  true  secularization  of  Russian 
thought.  As  Plekhanov  remarks  in  his  work  on 
Tshernyshevsky,  this  was  a  step  in  advance  compared 
with  the  naive  realism  of  Pisarev  and  the  German 
naturalists,  Buchner  and  Carl  Vogt,  his  masters,  who 
reduced  the  whole  problem  of  the  human  soul  to  the 
structure  and  the  functioning  of  the  brain.  Plekhanov 
asserted  that  Feuerbach,  without  realizing  it,  had 
approached  the  French  materialism  of  La  Mettric  and 
Diderot,  which  was  less  narrow  and  more  profound. 
Professor  Masaryk  discovers  in  Tshernyshevsky  a  strong 
predilection  for  English  thought,  which  distinguishes 
him  from  the  majority  of  Russian  thinkers.  But  I 
must  say  that  in  this  Tshernyshevsky  was  by  no  means 
exceptional,  for  at  that  period  English  thought  in 
general  exerted  an  immense  influence  in  Russia.  At 
the  risk  of  shocking  some  of  my  readers  I  will  venture 
to  assert  that  Russian  "  nihilism  "  is  for  the  most  part 
the  child  of  English  positivism.  A  Nihilist  was  almost 
always  a  Darwinian,  and  the  "  Buckle-book  "  (that  is, 
Buckle's  History  of  Civilization  in  England)  was  one 
of  the  textbooks  of  nihilism  ;  it  was  their  gospel. 
The  names  of  Darwin  and  Buckle  were  no  less  detested 
by   all   Russian   obscurantists   than   that  of   Feuerbach. 


CHAPTER    IX 

I.  Socialism  in  Russia — Socialism  and  religion.  II.  The  earliest 
European  influences — Saint-Simonism  in  Russia.  III.  Fourier 
and  Robert  Owen.  IV.  The  narodnitshestvo  and  Marxism — The 
"Bakunists"  in  Russia.  V.  "  Blanquism  "  in  Russia — Terrorism. 
VI.  Philosophy  and  the  reality — The  present  situation  of  the 
narodnitshestvo  and  Marxism. 

I 

The  literary  productions  of  Tshernyshevsky  are  closely 
bound  up  with  the  history  of  Russian  socialism. 

One  might  certainly  attribute  this  socialism  to 
remote  origins.  Peter  Kropotkin  believes  that  Euro- 
pean socialism  in  general  may  be  referred  to  the  French 
Revolution,  which,  he  says,  "  repeated,  in  its  turn,  the 
work  of  the  English  Revolution,"  and  "  was  the  source 
of  all  the  anarchist,  communist,  and  socialist  concep- 
tions of  our  times."  Kropotkin  asserts  that  "modern 
socialism  has  as  yet  added  nothing,  absolutely  nothing, 
to  the  ideas  which  were  in  circulation  among  the  French 
people  during  the  year  II  of  the  Republic.  Modern 
socialism  has  only  arranged  these  ideas  in  systems, 
and  has  found  arguments  in  their  favour,  either  by 
turning  certain  of  their  own  definitions  against  the 
bourgeois  economists,  or  by  generalizing  the  falcts  of 
the  development  of  industrial  capitalism  during  the 
nineteenth  century."  According  to  Kropotkin  "  there 
is  a  direct  filiation  from  the  Enrages  of  1793  and 
Babeuf    (1795)    to    the    International."1 

If  one  were  to  accept  this  verdict  of  Kropotkin's, 
doubtless     one    might    trace    Russian    socialism1    back 

1  Peter  Kropotkin,  The  Great  Revolution. 
324 


IDEALS  325 

through  Occidental  socialism  to  the  French  Revolution. 
But  it  is  possible  to  go  farther  and  to  find  the  source 
of  communistic  ideas  in  Christianity  ;  not  the  Chris- 
tianity of  the  Orthodox  Church,  but  that  of  the  first 
Christian    communities. 

In  Russia  some  interesting  attempts  have  been  made 
to  justify  the  Communist  and  Socialist  demands  by 
Christian  doctrine.  Leo  Tolstoy  invokes  the  name  of 
Christ  in  his  attack  upon  the  rights  of  private  property. 
Various  rural  religious  sects  make  the  Gospel  the  basis 
of  their  agrarian  communism.  Dostoievsky  recom- 
mended educated  Russia  to  bow  before  the  Orthodox 
truth  of  the  moujiks,  which,  according  to  him,  is 
identical  with  the  principle  of  social  justice.  Herzen, 
although  quite  without  Dostoievsky's  respect  for  Ortho- 
doxy, advised  enlightened  minds  to  reckon  with  the 
religious    convictions   of   the   peasants. 

But  what  is  much  more  curious  is  the  existence  of 
such  ideas,  during  the  last  few  years,  in  the  Russian 
Social-Democratic  party.  M.  Lenin,  although  a  con- 
vinced Marxist,  proposed,  some  years  ago,  that  the 
party  should  profit  by  the  religious  convictions  of  the 
peasants,  for  whom  the  earth  is  "  the  property  of  God," 
and  cannot  belong  to  any  one.  The  Socialists  should 
make  use  of  this  ingenuous  faith,  says  M.  Lenin  in  his 
pamphlet  on  the  agrarian  question,  in  order  to  persuade 
the  peasantry  that  it  is  necessary  to  confiscate  all  landed 
property  and  to  effect  the  "  nationalization  of  the  soil  "  ; 
that  is,  to  declare  the  private  lands  the  property  of  the 
State.  But  none  of  the  sections  of  the  Social-Demo- 
cratic party  cared  to  adopt  this  demagogic  plan,  and 
to  enter  upon  a  still  more  demagogic  exploitation  of 
the  superstitions  of  the  peasantry. 

For  the  rest,  such  an  artifice  was  destined  to  en- 
counter a '  check,  because,  for  the  majority  of  the 
moujiks,  "  the  soil  is  the  property  of  God  "  in  a  sense 
entirely  special,  which  has  nothing  in  common  with 
true  socialism.  What  the  peasant  regards  as  the 
'property  of  God  "  are  the  estates  of  the  nobles,  the 


326  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

great  landed  proprietors,  which  he  wishes  to  expro- 
priate for  his  own  benefit.  God  is  merely  a  pious  pre- 
text for  the  wholly  material  aspirations  of  the  peasantry. 

Another  small  group  of  Russian  Social-Democrats 
wished  to  do  better  than  to  make  religion  its  auxiliary  ; 
it  meditated  erecting  socialism  itself  into  a  religion. 
The  leader  of  this  pseudo-socialist  "  chapel  "  pub- 
lished two  volumes  intended  to  prove  that  socialism  is 
a  religious  doctrine,  that  the  Socialist  groups  are  merely 
a  new  Church  Universal  ;  that  Karl  Marx  and  Fried- 
rich  Engels  were  the  successors  of  the  prophets  of 
Israel  and  of  Christ,  and  that  the  dogma  of  the  pro-> 
letariat  must  replace  that  of  God.  As  for  the  applica- 
tion of  his  doctrine,  the  inventor  even  composed  a  new 
Lord's  Prayer,  in  which  the  name  of  God  is  replaced  by 
that  of  the  proletariat,  and  it  is  to  the  latter  that  the 
prayer  is  addressed  that  "  its  reign  shall  come  as  soon 
as   possible." 

The  founders  of  the  "  Socialist  religion  "  chose  for 
its  propagation  the  period  following  the  rising  of 
1905-6,  when  the  reaction  was  triumphant  in  the 
political,  social,  and  intellectual  domains.  They  pro- 
fessed to  be  able  to  cure  Russia  of  the  despair  into  which 
she  had  been  plunged  by  a  disastrous  war  and  an 
abortive  Revolution.  Nevertheless,  and  in  spite  of  the 
aid  of  the  celebrated  writer  Maxim  Gorky,  they  met  with 
no  success,  and  the  only  trace  which  remains  of  their 
enterprise  is  the  ironical  nicknames  of  "  the  Proletarian 
God  "  and  "  the  Saint  "  which  the  Socialist  Press 
bestowed   on   the    founder  of  the  new   pseudo-religion. 

This  little  episode  shows  that  socialism  and  religion 
are  in  Russia  divided  by  such  an  abyss  that  no  attempt 
to   reconcile  them'  can  be  regarded  seriously. 

Nihilism  has  left  behind  it  such  a  vigorous  ferment 
of  positivism  and  materialism,  both  of  which  were  so 
widely  diffused  by  Pisarev  and  Tshernyshevsky,  that  the 
Russian  intellectuals,  with  very  rare  exceptions,  remain 
completely  deaf  to  religious  prejudices,  and  accord  a  very 
cold  welcome  to  those  who  seek  to  reintroduce  them. 


IDEALS  327 

In  nearly  all  European  countries,  however,  some 
attempt  has  been  made  to  combine  socialism  with 
religion.  In  Austria  and  Germany  the  Catholic  and 
Protestant  clergy  take  part  in  the  labour  movement, 
and  do  their  best  to  unite,  in  a  peculiar  and  extremely 
reactionary  mixture,  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  the 
aspirations  of  the  labouring  masses.  In  Switzerland 
and  in  England  there  are  among  the  Socialists  believing 
and  practising  Christians  who  are  extremely  sincere  and 
in  no  way  reactionary.  We  find  nothing  of  the  sort 
in  Russia,  where  there  are  no  labour  organizations 
directed  and  protected  by  the  Church  ;  one  cannot  even 
cite  individual  cases  in  which  socialism  is  combined 
with  a  belief  in  God.  A  Russian  Socialist  is  always  an 
atheist . 

II 

To  return  to  the  share  of  the  French  Revolution  in 
the  development  of  socialism,  I  should  mention  that  in 
Russia  at  least  we  do  not  find  that  filiation  of  which 
Kropotkin  speaks.  In  Russia  we  find  that  men's  minds 
have  been  influenced  by  the  political  conceptions  of  the 
Revolution  of  1789,  and  not  by  its  "communism," 
which  was  in  general  extremely  vague.  The  en- 
lightened Russians  have  turned  toward  socialism  pre- 
cisely because  the  revolutionary  tradition  has  in  Russia 
been  confined  to  politics.  Herzen  is  the  best  witness  of 
this  natural  reaction  ;  he  experienced  it  in  person. 
This  is  how  he  describes  the  diffusion  in  Russia  of  the 
Saint-Simonian  ideals,  which  may  be  regarded  as  the 
point  of  departure  of  Russian  socialism. 

"The  embryo  liberalism  of  1826,  which  was  gradu- 
ally formed  according  to  the  French  conceptions,  recom- 
mended by  such  men  as  Lafayette  and  Benjamin 
Constant,  and  which  was  sung  by  Be>anger,  lost  its 
power  of  seduction,  as  far  as  we  were  concerned,  after 
the  fall  of  Poland.  It  was  then  that  a  portion  of  our 
Russian  youth  hastened  to  make  a  profound  and  serious 
study  of  Russian  history  ;   others  studied  German  philo- 


328  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

sopliy.  As  for  Ogariov  and  myself,  we  belonged  to 
neither  party.  We  were  too  deeply  rooted  in  other 
modes  of  thought  to  abandon  them  so  quickly.  Our 
faith  in  a  revolution  a  la  Beranger,  to  be  accomplished 
sitting  at  table,  was  shaken,  but  we  were  seeking  for 
something  else,  which  we  could  find  neither  in  the 
Chronicle  of  Nestor  nor  in  the  transcendental  idealism 
of  Schelling.  While  our  minds  were  thus  struggling 
amid  conjectures,  and  efforts  to  understand,  and  the 
doubts  which  alarmed  us,  some  of  the  pamphlets  of  the 
Saint -Simonians  fell  into  our  hands,  and  we  became 
acquainted  with  their  doctrines  and  the  proceedings 
brought  against  them.  .  .  .  We  were  impressed  by 
these  pamphlets.  They  proclaimed  the  new  faith  ;  they 
had  something  to  say  ;  they  had  good  reason  to  cite 
before  their  tribunal  the  old  order  of  things  which 
wanted  to  try  them  according  to  the  Code  Napoleon 
and   the  Orleanist   religion. 

"  On  the  one  hand,  the  emancipation  of  woman, 
her  access  to  community  of  labour,  her  destiny  restored 
to  her  own  hands,  and  union  with  her  as  with  an  equal  ; 
on  the  other  hand,  the  redemption  and  rehabilitation  of 
the   flesh  ! 

1  These  great  formulas  involved  a  world  of  new 
relations  between  men,  a  world  of  health,  wit,  and 
beauty,  a  world  naturally  moral  and  consequently 
morally    pure. 

"  What  courage  was  required  to  speak  openly  in 
France  of  emancipating  oneself  from  a  spiritualism  so 
strongly  established  in  the  ideas  of  France  and  so  utterly 
absent  from  the  conduct  of  the  French  ! 

"  A  new  world  was  knocking  at  the  door  ;  our 
minds  and  hearts  opened  to  it.  Saint-Simonism  took 
its  place  as  the  basis  of  our  convictions,  and  there,  in 
all   its  essentials,    remained  for  ever."  " 

We  see,  however,  that  the  essentials  of  Saint- 
Simonism  were  not,  for  Herzen,  the  same  as  for  the 
Saint-Simonians  themselves.     The  positive  organization 

1  A.  Herzen,  Works,  vol.  vi.  pp.  195-6. 


IDEALS  32tt 

of  Saint-Simonism,  its  social  and  religious  constitution, 
did  not  compel  Herzen's  admiration.  The  following 
generation  of  Russian  thinkers,  the  "  Nihilists,"  pro- 
nounced with  decision  against  Saint-Simonism  precisely 
because  of  its  religious  character.  The  force  of  repug- 
nance aroused  in  the  Nihilists  by  all  that  savoured  of 
religion  may  be  gauged  by  the  example  of  Pisarev,  who, 
a  "  popularizer  "  of  the  positivism  of  Auguste  Comtc, 
never  forgave  him  for  introducing  a  sort  of  religious 
element   into  his  philosophy. 

"  Having  completed  a  stupendous  work,"  said 
Pisarev,  "  Comte  was  unable  to  stop  where  he 
should  have  stopped  ;  and  he  spoiled  his  own  work, 
as  far  as  an  individual  person  can  spoil  that  which  is 
of  value  to  the  whole  of  humanity,  by  creating  a  new 
religion,  of  which  these  have  no  need,  while  those  can 
obtain  no  satisfaction  from  it." 

In  his  article  on  the  trial  of  the  Saint-Simonians 
Tshernyshevsky  protests  against  their  attempt  to  base 
a  new  social  order  on  an  authority  of  a  religious 
nature. 

"  Authority,"  he  says,  "  always  prevails  in  prejudices 
and  routine,  that  is,  in  those  matters  in  which  the 
reason  has  no  part.  Reason  is  aware  of  facts,  is  con- 
vinced by  proofs,  but  accepts  nothing  on  authority. 
...  To  think  otherwise,  to  believe  in  the  possibility 
of  an  authority  to  which  an  established  reason  would 
readily  submit,  is  a  thing  that  no  one  but  a  fanatic 
could  do,  and  a  fanatic  inspired  by  an  unjustified  belief 
in  the  ancient  benefits  of  the  Papacy."  Tshernyshevsky 
does  not  accept  love  either  as  the  basis  of  the  new 
society,  because  love  influences  men  only  in  rare 
moments  of  exaltation,  while  in  general  men  are  swayed 
by  calculation,  usage,  and  habits.  For  him  the  Saint- 
Simonians,  we  re  drawing-room  reformers. 

At  the  same  time,  however,  Tshernyshevsky  con- 
sidered that  the  fundamental  idea  of  Saint-Simonism 
was  "  simple  and  pure,"  and  he  expresses  his  opinion  of 
it  in   the   following  words  : — 


330  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

"  For  the  pacification  of  society  it  is  necessary  that 
the  moral  and  material  existence  of  the  most  numerous 
and  most  poverty-stricken  class  of  society  should  be 
ameliorated  as  rapidly  as  possible."  Tshernyshevsky 
declares  that  "  the  duty  of  every  good  citizen,  of 
every  honest  man,  is  to  devote  his  energies  to  this 
task." 

Tshernyshevsky  was  thus  able  to  distinguish  between 
the  sublime  ideal  of  Saint-Simon  and  his  disciples  and 
their  errors  of  practice.  Their  doctrine  is  regarded 
even  to-day  with  attention  and  sympathy  in  Russia.  It 
forms  a  subject  of  study  and  examination  in  the  Uni- 
versities. Fifteen  years  ago,  in  the  faculty  of  history 
and  philology  at  the  University  of  Moscow,  when  I 
was  following  the  course  there,  it  was  made  the  subject 
of  special  lectures.  Many  textbooks  of  the  history 
of  economics  employed  by  Russian  students  devote 
chapters  to  it.  Even  the  most  bourgeois  scholars 
regard  it  very  favourably. 

Here,  for  example,  is  what  Professor  Toughan- 
Baranovsky,  the  well-known  economist,  has  to  say  of 
it  : — 

"  The  position  which  Saint-Simon  occupies  in  the 
history  of  thought  is  so  tremendous  that  it  cannot  be 
exaggerated.  We  regard  him  as  the  most  vital  social 
thinker  of  the  new  age  ;  we  believe  he  has,  with  a  sure 
hand,  laid  solid  foundations  for  the  scientific  structure 
at  whose  completion  many  generations  have  yet  to 
labour.  Saint-Simon's  ideas  refer  not  to  one  isolated 
science,  but  to  the  whole  cycle  of  sciences  relating  to 
human  society.  The  philosophy  of  history,  sociology, 
political  economy,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  jurisprudence 
in  its  broad  general  principles,  all  date  from  Saint- 
Simon."  ' 

M.  Toughan-Baranovsky  also  believes  that  "  the 
whole  of  the  '  positivist  philosophy  '  was  borrowed  by 
Comte  from  Saint-Simon,"  and  that  "  this  remarkable 

1  M.  Toughan-Baranovsky,  Sketches  of  the  History  of  Contemporary 
Political  Economy  and  Socialism,  2nd  ed.,  p.  98  (Petersburg,  1905). 


IDEALS  331 

thinker,  with  far  more  reason  than  Marx,  may  be   re- 
garded as  the  creator  of  modern  social  science." 

Ill 

Despite  this  homage,  Saint-Simonism  has  had  no 
effective  influence  upon  the  socialist  movement  in 
Russia.  The  ideas  of  Fourier  and  Robert  Owen 
hindered  its  diffusion,  and  those  "  Nihilists  "  who 
had  been  unable  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  Saint-Simon 
became  the  most  enthusiastic   "  Fourierists." 

Tshernyshevsky,  during  his  imprisonment,  wrote  a 
novel  (What's  to  be  Done?)  which  acquired  enormous 
popularity,  although,  considered  merely  as  literature, 
it  leaves  something  to  be  desired.  This  novel  is  full 
of  "  Fourierist  "  ideas,  and  it  did  more  to  diffuse  them 
throughout  Russia  than  all  the  theoretical  works  taken 
together. 

"  Tshernyshevsky  proposed  nothing  new,"  says  his 
biographer  and  critic  :  "  he  merely  made  known  the 
deductions  at  which  Occidental  thought  had  long  before 
arrived.  .  .  .  But  he  gave  the  ideas  of  Fourier  a  vogue 
previously  unknown  in  Russia.  He  taught  them  to 
the  great  public."  ' 

Plekhanov  observes  that,  under  the  inspiration  of 
Fourier,  Tshernyshevsky  was  the  first  of  the  Russian 
Socialists  to  imagine  socialist  society  of  the  future 
organized  upon  the  basis  of  a  very  highly  developed 
technique  and  wholesale  production  by  gigantic  under- 
takings. Certain  of  his  successors,  who  believed,  on 
the  contrary,  that  the  future  would  see  a  federation  of 
small  communes  and  pigmy  enterprises,  were  really 
behind  him  in  their  ideas,  for  if  socialism  is  a  superior 
form  of  economic  organization,  it  must  make  use  of 
the  technical  victories  won  by  the  capitalist  world,  in- 
stead of  -returning  to  the  small  bourgeois  ways  of  the 
pre-capitalist  era." 

But  this  error  was  inevitable,  because  the  imagina- 
tion always  reflects  the  reality,  and  a  communal  petit - 
1  G.  Plekhanov,  N.  Tshernyshevsky,  p.  75. 


332  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

bourgeois  ideal  of  socialism  was  bound  to  come  into 
being  in  Russia,  the  country  of  small  rural  exploitations. 

Tshernyshevsky  himself  was  unable  entirely  to  escape 
from  this  conception  ;  he  continued  to  favour  it,  tracing 
the  social  function  of  the  rural  commune  in  Russia. 

In  general  Tshernyshevsky  was  a  convinced  Occi- 
dentalism He  used  to  say  of  the  Slavophiles  :  "  Their 
sight  is  so  peculiarly  constituted  that  any  Russian  filth 
they  may  see  appears  to  them  excellent,  and  admirably 
suited  to  reanimate  moribund  Europe."  He  severely 
criticized  Herzen's  opinion  concerning  "  young  "  Russia 
and  the  "  old  world  "  of  Europe  ;  protesting  against 
this  species  of  national  pride,  of  which  Herzen  was  not 
always  innocent.  Tshernyshevsky  believed  that  Europe 
has  nothing  to  learn  from  Russia,  because  "  she  herself 
understands  better  than  we  what  new  conditions  she 
has  need  of,  and  the  way  to  create  them."  But  on  the 
subject  of  the  mir  Tshernyshevsky  agreed  both  with 
Herzen  and  certain  of  the  Slavophiles,  who  asserted 
that  that  which  in  the  West  was  still  an  aspiration  Jiad 
in  reality  already  passed  away  in  Russia,  because  the 
Russian  rural  commune  succeeds  in  reconciling  the 
principle  of  individuality  with  the  interests  of  the  com- 
munity. He,  too,  asserted  that  in  Russia  "there  exists  in 
reality  what  in  the  West  appears  to  be  a  Utopia."  In 
Russia  "  the  popular  mass  regards  the  soil  as  a  common 
possession,"  while  private  estates  are  not  numerous, 
and  the  individualistic  conception  of  property  is  not 
rooted  in  "  the  soul  of  the  people."  In  the  West  the 
dissolution  of  the  rural  commune  has  had  the  most 
unfortunate  results  ;  it  has  engendered  pauperism  and 
poverty.  So  "  we  must  not  ignore  the  example  of 
the  Occident,  and  must  maintain  the  commune  in 
Russia."  In  the  Occident  "  the  individual  is  already 
accustomed  to  exercise  unrestricted  rights  over  his 
private  property,"  and  '  the  prevalence  of  a  better 
system  in  economic  relations  would  demand  sacrifices 
there  ;  this  is  why  it  is  difficult.  Such  a  system  is  not 
in  agreement  with  the  habits  of  a  French  or  English 


IDEALS  333 

peasant."  In  Russia,  thanks  to  the  existence  of  the 
commune,  this  moral  and  juridical  obstacle  does  not 
exist. 

We  shall  see  later  on  that  the  mir  became  the  subject 
of  long  and  violent  discussion  between  the  two  gr< 
schools  of  Russian  socialism  which  took  shape  towards 
the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century  (narodnitshestvo  and 
Marxism).  Now,  this  question  had  already  been  brought 
into  prominence  by  Tshernyshevsky  and  his  contempo- 
raries. Europe  was  not  unaware  of  this.  In  the  first 
place,  the  first  serious  study  of  the  Russian  mir,  in  its 
social  and  economic  relations,  was  the  work  not  of  a 
Russian  but  of  a  German  (von  Haxthausen ),  who 
veritably  "  discovered  "  the  rural  commune  in  Russia, 
and  explained  its  full  importance  to  the  public.  This 
was  in  1847.  Tshernyshevsky  and  several  of  his  com- 
patriots and  contemporaries  were  acquainted  with  von 
Haxthausen's  work,  and  found  therein  the  elements  of 
a  verdict  upon  the  institution. 

Then  the  Utopian  Socialists,  French  and  English, 
with  their  schemes  of  "  associations  '  of  producers — 
among  others  Louis  Blanc  and  Robert  Owen — led  the 
first  Russian  Socialists  to  seek  for  a  practical  form 
under  which  they  might  install  the  "  new  social  order  " 
in  Russia.  And  as  the  method  of  capitalistic  exploita- 
tion was  not  then  very  highly  developed,  and  as  there 
was  as  yet  no  industrial  proletariat  in  Russia,  they  could 
find  no  subject  but  the  rural  population.  In  this  they 
had  to  seek  for  a  basis  of  association.  They  believed 
they  had  found  it  in  the  mir. 

Some  European  Socialists  also  shared  this  positive 
appreciation  of  the  Russian  rural  commune.  This  is 
what  Proudhon  says  in  his  posthumous  work  of  the 
communal  ownership  of  the  soil  : — 

"  This  form  of  ownership  is  essentially  equalitarian  : 
in  Russia  the  commune,  which  is  regarded  as  sole  pro- 
prietor, has  to  provide  each  household  with  a  quantity 
of  cultivable  soil,  and  if  the  number  of  families  increases 
the   division    has    to    be   modified    so    that    no    one    is 


331  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

excluded.  This  method  is  common  to  all  the  Slav 
peoples  ;  it  has  been  maintained  in  Russia  by  the  decree 
of  emancipation    (of    1861)."1 

Proudhon  considered  that  "  political  economy  itself  " 
can  require  nothing  better  than  this  form  of  ownership, 
"  which  is  contrary  to  inequality,"  and  which,  there- 
fore,  should  be   "  regularized  and  confirmed." 

I  may  remark  in  passing  that  there  are  other  points 
of  agreement  between  Proudhon  and  Tshernyshevsky, 
notably  in  the  theory  of  economics.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  Proudhon  exercised  a  certain  ascendancy  over 
Tshernyshevsky . 

But  M.  Plekhanov,  in  his  work  on  Tshernyshevsky, 
asserts  that  of  all  the  great  Utopian  Socialists  of  Europe 
it  was  Robert  Owen  who  made  the  strongest  impression 
of  Tshernyshevsky,  and  he  explains  this  by  certain 
peculiarities  of  Tshernyshevsky 's.  "  By  the  nature  of 
his  temperament,  in  which  reason  predominated,  he  was 
inclined  to  sympathize  with  those  of  the  great  founders 
of  the  socialist  systems  who  were  less  guilty  of  yield- 
ing to  the  temptations  of  fantastic  imaginings.  Thus 
Robert  Owen  was  assuredly  more  akin  to  him  than 
Fourier."  2 

Plekhanov  thus  confirms  what  I  have  already  said 
in  a  more  general  form  of  the  influence  of  English 
thought  upon  Russian  "nihilism."  But  it  must  not 
be  supposed  that  Owen's  ideas  could  have  received 
a  practical  application  in  the  Russia  of  those  days,  as 
was  possible  in  industrial  England.  It  is  only  to-day 
that  Owen's  ideas  are  guiding  the  effective  action  of 
certain  Russian  Socialists,  notably  those  who  are 
collaborating  in  the  co-operative  movement.  For  the 
promoters  of  co-operation  in  Russia  Owen  has  become 
a  guiding  star.  In  the  working-men's  clubs  his  life 
and  work  are  studied  and  his  precepts  are  taught, 
while  articles  and  pamphlets  are  devoted  to  these  sub- 
jects which  find  tens  of  thousands  of  readers. 

1  Proudhon,  (Euvres  Posthumes,  vol.  i.  p.  89  (Paris,  1866). 

2  Plekhanov,  op.  cit.  p.  302. 


IDEALS  335 

Robert  Owen,  like  Saint-Simon  and  Fourier,  has  won 
a  place  in  the  academic  life  of  Russia.  Professor 
Toughan-Baranovsky  states  that  the  influence  of  Owen 
is  "  an  instructive  and  glorious  page  in  the  social  history 
of  modern  England."  "  The  whole  co-operative  move- 
ment of  to-day  is  the  result  of  Owen's  propaganda. 
.  .  .  Millions  of  workers  in  England  and  all  the  world 
over,  who  are  at  present  deriving  real  economic  advant- 
ages from  co-operation,  have  to  thank  none  other  than 
the  ingenuous  dreamer  Owen,  who  in  his  day  was  so 
riddled  by  the  scorn  of  the  representatives  of  so-called 
common  sense,  who  were  only  too  clairvoyant  as  regards 
their  immediate  advantage,  but  were  completely  unable 
to  see  into  the  future."  ' 

But,  I  repeat,  the  practical  application  of 
"  Owenism  "  in  Russia  has  only  become  possible  in 
our  days.  As  for  Tshernyshevsky's  time,  the  Russian 
Socialists  were  able  to  adopt  only  the  theory  of 
"  Owenism."  Tshernyshevsky  in  particular  borrowed 
from  Owen  a  very  important  and  wholly  materialistic 
principle  :  the  impress  of  the  social  environment  upon 
the  actions  and  feelings  of  mankind. 

Still,  Tshernyshevsky,  like  Owen  and  the  French 
Utopians,  had  retained  a  great  measure  of  metaphysics 
and  idealism.  He  was  inclined  to  explain  historical 
events  as  a  rationalist.  He  believed  that  men  had 
been  and  were  unfortunate  because  they  were  insuffi- 
ciently "educated  "  and  "  conscious."  It  would,  there- 
fore, suffice  to  explain  to  them  the  justice  and  convince 
them  of  the  necessity  of  changing  the  existing  state 
of  things,  to  win  them  over  to  a  good  "  scheme  '  of 
a  new  order,  and  the  social  problem  would  be  solved. 

This  belief  in  the  power  of  reason,  which  links 
Tshernyshevsky  and  other  of  the  Russian  "  Nihilists  " 
with  the  Encyclopaedists  and  the  French  Revolutionists, 
played  a  great  part  in  the  evolution  of  socialist  theory 
and  the  revolutionary  movement  in  Russia.  If  it  is 
reason  which  rules  the  world,  who,  then,  is  the  master 
1  Toughan-Baranovsky,  op.  cit.  p.  89. 


336  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

in  the  struggle  for  liberty  and  the  happiness  of  the 
people?  Not  the  masses  of  the  people  themselves  ; 
but  the  enlightened  men  of  the  country,  the  profes- 
sional representatives  of  reason,  so  to  speak.  The 
task  incumbent  upon  the  intellectuals  in  the  socialist 
and  revolutionary  movement  in  this  way  became  one 
of  the  most  burning  questions  of  the  day,  and  Russian 
socialism  split  upon  this  rock  into  two  violently  opposed 
camps. 

IV 

In  the  general  evolution  of  Russian  thought  in  the 
nineteenth  century  we  observe  a  very  significant  change 
in  the  attractive  forces  which  our  Occidentalists  obeyed. 
In  1830  and  in  1850  they  were  chiefly  captivated  by 
the  abstract  ideas  of  philosophy  and  metaphysics. 
Nihilism  gave  the  preference  to  the  natural  sciences. 
But  Tshernyshevsky  betrayed  a  great  interest  in  the 
problems  of  sociology  and  history  and  economics.  This 
tendency  became  preponderant  in  his  successors,  and 
the  conflict  between  narodnitshestvo  (Populism)  and 
Marxism,  which  almost  wholly  occupied  the  intellectual 
life  of  cultivated  society  in  Russia  at  the  end  of  the 
last  century,  was  fought  over  problems  of  history, 
sociology,  and  economics.  Maxim  Kovalewsky,  an 
ocular  witness  of  the  change  of  front,  compares  it 
with  the  happenings  in  France  at  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century.     He  says  : — 

'  In  a  country  in  which  political  debates  are  un- 
known, the  discussions  of  the  great  problems  of  social 
science,  above  all  those  which  concern  the  present  situa- 
tion in  a  direct  or  indirect  fashion,  occupy  a  position 
which  they  could  never  attain  in  a  more  disturbed 
environment.  It  being  the  fashion  to  debate  such 
problems,  everybody  in  our  days  is  either  a  sociologist 
or  an  economist,  in  speech  at  least,  neither  more  nor 
less  than  in  France,  a  few  years  after  the  krach 
occasioned  by  John  Law,  the  famous  Dr.  Quesnay  in- 
spired the  people  who  had  recovered  from  their  infatua- 


IDEALS  337 

tion  for  the  system  of  protection  by  his  doctrines  of 
free  trade  and  natural  economic  laws. 

"  This  is  not,  moreover,  the  only  trait  of  resemblance 
between  modern  Russia  and  the  France  of  a  century 
or  more  ago.  Like  our  grandfathers,  the  men  of  the 
Constituent  Assembly,  the  young  generations  in  Russia 
are  steeped  in  the  conviction  that  a  new  social  era 
is  shortly  to  open.  They  believe  that  they  are  called 
upon  to  facilitate  its  advent  by  the  judicious  employ- 
ment of  the  scientific  data  and  the  social  experience 
acquired   by  the   European   Occident. 

"  These  are  generous  ideas,  which  assuredly  do  not 
merit  the  belittlement  and  animosity  with  which  they 
have  been  received  by  those  who  declare  themselves 
unmitigated  partisans  of  the  secular  bases  of  our 
economic   system." 

The  analogy  drawn  by  M.  Kovalewsky  between  the 
passion  excited  by  economic  problems  in  France  at 
the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  that  observable 
in  Russia  at  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century  is  in- 
teresting, but  the  explanation  which  he  gives  of  the 
Russian  interest  in  such  matters  is  insufficient.  He  is 
not  correct  in  saying  that  people  became  enamoured 
of  economics  because  the  Government  would  not  allow 
them  to  meddle  in  politics.  The  interest  in  matters 
of  economics  was  due  to  two  factors  :  in  the  first 
place,  to  the  fact  that  after  the  suppression  of  serf- 
dom in  1 80 1  Russia  entered  upon  a  period  of  very 
intense  commercial,  industrial,  and  financial  activity, 
which  could  not  fail  to  draw  the  attention  of  all  open 
minds  ;  and  in  the  second  place,  because  economic 
questions  were  inseparable  from  political  questions,  so 
that  at  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  and  the  beginning 
of  the  twentieth  century  parties  were  divided  on  both 
political  and  economic  principles,  a  certain  political 
system  being  always  attached  to  a  certain  economic 
system  ;  and  the  adherent  to  the  one  system  was  neces- 
sarily a  supporter  of  the  other.  A  narodnik  belongs 
to   a  given  school  of  economics,   and  also  to  a   given 

22 


338  RUSSIA  AND   EUROPE 

school  of  politics.  The  term  "Marxist"  denotes  not 
merely  a  supporter  of  Marx's  doctrine  of  "  economic 
materialism/'  but  also  a  member  of  the  Social-Demo- 
cratic party. 

These  two  beliefs — Populism  and  Marxism — literally 
monopolized  the  minds  of  the  Russian  democrats  before 
the  movement  of  1905.  The  entire  youth  of  Russia 
was  caught  in  the  cogs  of  the  theoretical  conflict  to 
which  they  devoted  themselves.  Their  divergences  were 
principally  on  account  of  the  following  points  : — 

What  is  the  Russian  type  of  economic  development? 
Is  it  identical  with  that  of  Western  Europe,  or  different? 

What,  in  particular,  is  the  future  of  rural  economy 
and  the  mir  in  Russia? 

What  is  the  role  of  the  peasantry,  of  the  bourgeoisie, 
of  the  industrial  proletariat,  and  of  the  intellectual 
world?  What,  in  general,  is  the  role  of  the  individual 
in  history? 

All  these  questions,  abstract  and  theoretical  at  first 
sight,  were  in  reality  of  great  practical  importance, 
because  the  political  parties  regulated  their  programmes 
and  their  tactics  according  to  the  response  which  they 
received,  which,  of  course,  varied  according  to  the  social 
mentality  of  those  who  responded. 

Thus  between  1870  and  1885,  in  the  opinions  and 
actions  of  the  revolutionaries  were  perceptible  the 
characteristics  of  the  educated  classes  from  which  they 
were  exclusively  recruited  :  extreme  rationalism  and 
an  exaggerated  idea  of  the  role  of  "  personality  '  in 
social  life.  On  the  other  hand,  these  same  men  adopted 
the  thesis  of  Bakunin  respecting  the  communist 
mentality  of  the  popular  masses  in  Russia.  According 
to  the  resulting  theory,  it  is  they  who  are  the  conscious 
upholders  of  the  same  communist  ideal  which  is,  so 
to  speak,  innate  in  the  masses  of  the  Russian  popula- 
tion.1     They   have,    therefore,    only   to    draw   closer   to 

1  An  analogous  idea  is  developed  by  Prince  Kropotkin  in  his  Modern 
Science  and  Anarchy,  in  which  he  regards  anarchy  as  a  thing  which 
"  does  not  come  from  the  Universities,  but  from  the  creative  energy 


IDEALS  33« 

the  people,  to  descend  into  the  depths  of  the  peoplo. 
there  to  carry  on  propaganda,  distribute  pamphlets,  and 
sow  revolt. 

Russian   literature  has  kept  the  record  of  this  great 
attempt  at  communion  : — 

A  passport,  a  wallet, 

A  baker's  dozen  of  "  publications," 

Sturdy  legs, 

Many  places,  many  dreams. 

Fields  and  meadows, 

Clearings,  the  wealth  of  nature, 

Empty  roads, 

The  distress  in  the  peasants'  houses  : 

But  in  every  house 

Bread  is  ready  for  the  "  traveller  "  ; 

Eagerly  the  people  listen 

The  words  of  truth. 

In  the  villages  are  gendarmes, 

Fines,  duties,  taxes. 

"  There  will  be  a  revolution,  little  brothers  ! " 

One  hears  on  every  side  as  they  talk.' 

But  the  poetic  records  were  fairer  than  the  effective 
results  of  the  propaganda.  In  vain  did  the  "  intel- 
lectuals "  mingle  with  the  people  and  summon  the 
peasants  to  "  revolt  "  ;  with  rare  exceptions  the 
peasants,  to  whom  the  agitators  attributed  "  a  collective 
cranium,"  refused  to  bestir  themselves  or  revolted 
against  the  propagandists,  tying  their  hands  and  pre- 
senting them  to  the  authorities.  This  revolutionary 
campaign  among  the  peasants  miscarried,  not,  as  might 
be  supposed,  because  they  could  not  understand  it,  nor 

of  the  people,"  and  at  the  same  time  as  "an  attempt  to  apply  general- 
izations acquired  by  the  inductive  method  of  the  natural  sciences  to 
the  appreciation  of  human  institutions,  and  to  divine,  taking  its  stand 
on  this  appreciation,  the  future  progress  of  humanity  along  the  path 
of  liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity,  for  the  greatest  possible  happiness 
of  each  unit  of  human  society"  {Modem  Science  and  Anarchy,   London' 

I  901). 

1  M.  Mouravsky,  Among  the  People  (poem  written  in  1874). 


340  RUSSIA   AND  EUROPE 

because  they  were  indifferent  to  "  politics."  The 
majority  of  the  propagandists  did  not  seek  to  excite 
the  political  susceptibilities  of  the  Russian  population, 
but  its  economic  aspirations.  Many  of  them  believed, 
with  Proudhon  and  Bakunin,  that  the  labouring  masses 
have  nothing  to  do  with  politics  or  changes  in  the 
system  of  government.  The  germ  of  this  theory  is 
to  be  found  in  Herzen's  Open  Letters  to  Linton,  a 
well-known  English  writer,  in  which  he  states  that 
if  the  Russian  people  one  day  revolts  it  will  not  be 
to  replace  the  tyranny  of  a  Tsar  by  that  of  a  Presi- 
dent or  a  bourgeois  Parliament,  but  to  attain  a  "  verit- 
able and  complete  "  liberty.  This  true  political 
nihilism,  which  puts  all  systems  and  all  governments 
into  the  same  basket,  reflects  both  the  anarchism  of 
Europe  and  the  indifference  of  the  contemporary 
Russian  peasant.  The  "  Bakunists  "  beheld  in  it  a 
proof  of  the  communist  mentality  of  the  Russian  people, 
which,  according  to  them,  should  already  have  under- 
stood the  vanity  of  all  political  transformations,  so 
that  they  would  accept  only  a  social  revolution. 

Russia's   backwardness   was   reacted   into   superiority 
over  Europe. 

The  Marxists,  who  attacked  the  "  anarchizing  "  move- 
ment of  the  narodnitshestvo,  were  easily  able  to  demon- 
strate   that    the    reality    did    not    correspond    with    the 
imaginings  of  the  "  propagandists,"  and  that  the  Com- 
munist movement,   starting  from  Europe,   was   born  of 
the  resistance  of  the  workers  to  the  capitalist  system, 
while    the    Russian    peasants    were    still    living    in    the 
pre-capitalist    age.      On   the   other   hand,    the   Russian 
peasant,  who  readily  accepted  the  idea  of  a  "  just  dis- 
tribution "  of  the  soil  when  the  property  of  the  great 
landowners  was  at  stake,  will  have  none  of  it  when  his 
own  property  is  concerned.     Moreover,  the  communal 
possession   of   the   soil    does    not    signify   any   sort    of 
actual    communism,    for    while    possessing    the    soil    in 
common    the    peasants    cultivate    it    individually  ;     and 
individually  they  profit  by  the  product  of  their  labours. 


IDEALS  341 

We  must  not,  therefore,  count  on  the  "  collective 
cranium  "  of  the  moujik  to  effect  a  social  revolu- 
tion. We  must  look  to  the  industrial  proletariat  for 
that. 

The  check  suffered  by  the  "  descent  "  of  the  intel- 
lectuals upon  the  rural  districts  proved  that  the  Marxists 
were  right. 

But  as  between  1870  and  1880  the  Russian  prole- 
tariat was  as  yet  neither  sufficiently  strong  nor 
sufficiently  numerous  to  inspire  Russian  thinkers  with 
the  hope  that  their  aspirations  were  soon  to  be  satisfied, 
they  preferred  to  choose  another  "  shorter  "  way  :  the 
way  of  conspiracies  and  of  terrorism. 

As  early  as  1875  a  revolutionary  organ  (Nabat, 
which  is  to  say  The  Tocsin)  protested  vigorously  against 
the  anti-State  theory  of  the  "  Bakunists,"  opposing  their 
federalistic  ideas  by  the  idea  of  a  centralized  revolu- 
tion, which  would  take  the  form  of  a  coup  d'etat. 

"  In  the  West,  as  at  home,"  said  the  Nabat,  "  we 
observe  two  movements  ;  one  is  purely  Utopian,  federa- 
tive, and  anarchist  ;  the  other  is  realistic,  centralizing, 
and  '  statist.'  Failing  the  forcible  capture  of  the 
governmental  power  by  the  revolutionary  party,  no  solid 
or  radical  changes  in  the  existing  social  order  are 
possible."  • 

But  the  people  were  not  yet  capable  of  seizing  the 
reins  of  power.  This  was  not  an  obstacle,  as  a 
"  revolutionary  minority  "  might  do  so  for  the  people. 

"  It  goes  without  saying  that  the  fewer  revolutionary 
elements  there  are  in  the  people,  and  the  smaller  the 
dimensions  of  its  revolutionary  energy,  the  smaller  must 
be  its  part  in  the  realization  of  the  social  revolution, 
and  the  greater  must  be  the  role,  the  power,  and  the 
influence  of  the  revolutionary  minority.  .  .  .  The  revo- 
lutionary minority,  having  liberated  the  people  from 
the  yoke  of  the  terror  and  awe  with  which  the  Govern- 

•  Cited    from   P.   Lavrov's  The  Propagandist  Narodniki  of  the  Years 
1873-78  (Petersburg,  1907),  p.  172. 


42  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

ment  inspired  it,  would  provide  it  with  the  possibility  of 
manifesting  its  revolutionary  power  of  destruction.  .  .  . 
The  revolutionary  minority,  profiting  by  the  destructive 
power  of  the  people,  would  destroy  the  enemies  of 
the  revolution,  and,  basing  itself  upon  the  general  spirit 
of  the  positive  ideal  of  the  people  (that  is,  on  its 
conservative  energies),  would  lay  the  foundation  of  a 
new  and  rational  social  order."  1 

The  distrust  with  which  the  ideologists  of  this  "  revo- 
lutionary minority  "  regarded  the  people  was  so  great 
that  they  declared  that  "  never,  neither  to-day  nor  in 
the  future,  would  the  people,  left  to  itself,  be  capable 
of  effecting  a  social  revolution.  We  alone,  the  revolu- 
tionary minority,  might  achieve  it,  and  we  mast  do 
so  as  soon  as  possible." 

V 

The  Marxist  critics  of  this  theory  of  the  "  revolu- 
tionary minority  "  have  pointed  out  the  fact  that  it 
is  by  no  means  original,  but  that  its  prototype  is  to 
be  found,  on  the  one  hand,  in  Jacobinism,  and  on  the 
other  in  the  ideas  and  activities  of  Auguste  Blanqui, 
who  also  believed  that  a  small  number  of  well-organized 
revolutionaries  might,  at  a  propitious  moment,  make 
an  attempt  which  would  be  crowned  by  success.  And 
the  theory  of  the  revolutionary  minority  is  known  in  the 
history  of  the  socialist  movement  in  Russia  as  Russian 
Blanquism.  But  Russian  Blanquism  was  more  "  Blan- 
quist  "  than  Blanqui  himself.  We  know  that 
Blanqui,  extreme  revolutionary  though  he  was,  had 
the  sense  to  wait  when  it  was  necessary,  and  even  to 
restrain  his  more  impatient  comrades.  The  leaders 
of  Russian  Blanquism  used  to  tell  their  disciples  :  "  The 
people  is  always  ready  for  the  revolution.  .  .  .  Wait? 
Have  we  the  right  to  wait?  We  shall  tolerate  no  waiting, 
no  delay.  .  .  .  We  cannot,  we  will  not  wait  !  .  .  . 
Let  each  take  that  which  he  has,  as  speedily  as  may 
be,  and  move  forward  !  " 

1  Cited  from  P.  Lavrov,  op.  cit.  pp.  173-4. 


IDEALS  343 

The  contributors  to  the  Blanquist  organ  declared 
any  person  to  be  a  renegade  who,  belonging  to  the 
revolutionary  party,  did  not  believe  in  the  possibility 
of  an  immediate   revolution. 

The  Russian  "  Blanquists  '  sought  to  justify  their 
tactics  by  aid  of  highly  original  arguments.  Notably 
they  asserted  that  these  tactics  were  best  suited  to 
the  national  conditions  of  Russia .  Their  leader,  Peter 
Tkatshev,  expounded  these  arguments  in  his  open  letter 
to  Friedrich  Engels  : — 

"  .We  in  Russia  have  at  our  disposal  none  of  those 
means  of  revolutionary  conflict  which  you  possess  in 
the  West.  .  .  .  We  have  neither  urban  proletariat,  nor 
liberty  of  the  Press,  nor  national  representation.  .  .  . 
We  cannot  think,  in  our  country,  of  publications  for 
the  workers  ;  but  even  if  they  were  possible  they  would 
be  useless,  as  the  majority  of  our  people  cannot  read." 
But  all  this  does  not  mean  that  the  victory  of  the 
social  revolution  is  more  problematical  in  Russia  than 
in  the  West.  By  no  means  !  "We  have  no  urban 
proletariat,  it  is  true  ;  also  there  is  no  bourgeoisie.  No 
middle  class,  in  Russia,  divides  the  suffering  people 
from  the  despotism  of  the  State  which  oppresses  it  ; 
our  workers  can  only  bring  political  force  into  the 
battle  ;  the  power  of  capital,  with  us,  is  still 
embryonic."  ' 

"  Our  revolutionary  party  of  intellectuals  is  not 
numerous,  it  is  true.  But  it  pursues  none  but  socialist 
ideals,  and  its  enemies  are  still  more  powerless  than 
it.  .  .  .  Our  Government  appears  strong  only  from 
a  distance.  In  reality  its  strength  is  fictitious  and 
imaginary.  It  has  no  roots  in  the  economic  life  of  the 
people.  .  .  .  Among  you  Europeans  the  State  stands 
with  both  feet  on  capital.  With  us  it  is  suspended 
in  the  air." 

This  wholly  unreal  and  erroneous  theory  was  matched 
by  equally  erroneous  and  ineffectual  practical  applica- 
tions :     men    believed    in    the    possibility    of    changing 

•  Cited  from  Plekhanov's  Our  Dissensions  (Petersburg,  1906),  p.  47. 


344  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

the  system  of  government  by  means  of  conspiracies 
and  acts  of  terrorism.  The  whole  of  the  close  of 
Alexander  II's  reign  was  marked  by  plots  and  attempts 
upon  the  Tsar,  who  was  killed  on  the  ist  of  March 
1 88 1.  But  the  violent  death  of  Alexander  II  demon- 
strated in  the  most  obvious  fashion  how  useless  were 
the  efforts  of  the  conspirators  and  terrorists.  The 
autocracy  emerged  from  the  crisis  not  enfeebled,  but 
stronger  than   before. 

But  twenty  years  later,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
present  century,  we  witnessed  a  revival  of  political 
terrorism  in  Russia.  The  Revolutionary  Socialist  party, 
which  continues  the  tradition  of  the  old  narodnitshestvo, 
makes  terrorism  one  of  its  levers  of  action.  It  creates 
"  fighting  organizations  "  and  "  flying  columns,"  which 
hunt  down  Grand  Dukes,  Ministers,  Governors  of 
provinces,  etc.  But  after  some  years  of  a  highly 
intensive  terrorist  campaign  the  political  in- 
efficacy  of  terrorism  became  obvious.  More  :  we 
may  say  that  individual  terrorism  is  more  dangerous 
to  the  party  which  employs  it  than  to  the  Govern- 
ment. 

The  tactics  of  individual  terrorism  weaken  the  effec- 
tives of  the  revolutionary  party,  which  loses  its  best 
members,  the  most  energetic  and  the  most  devoted  ; 
it  weakens  the  organization  and  even  the  propaganda  ; 
for  why  waste  time  in  organizing  the  labouring  masses 
if  one  can  command  an  instrument  so  "  effective  "  and 
giving  such  rapid  results  as  terrorism  in  the  imagina- 
tion of  those  who  apply  it?  Again,  terrorism  offers 
such  scope  to  the  agents- provocateurs  that  in  the  end 
the  whole  organization  of  the  party  becomes  a  play- 
thing in  the  hands  of  the  secret  police,  which  very 
thing  has  happened  to  the  Revolutionary  Socialist  party 
in  Russia.  M.  Bourtzev  has  shown  that  during  more 
than  ten  years  all  the  central  organisms  of  the  party 
were  under  the  supervision,  if  not  under  the  direction, 
of  a  certain  Azev,  "  the  greatest  provocateur  in  the 
world." 


IDEALS  345 

The  dismal  history  of  the  terrorist  organization  of 
the  Revolutionary  Socialist  party  provoked  a  reaction 
against  the  tactics  of  terrorism  among  the  members 
of  the  party  itself.  In  1909  (subsequently  to  the  revela- 
tions of  Bourtzcv),  at  the  meeting  of  the  council  of 
this  party,  some  of  the  delegates  declared  against  the 
terrorist  method,  and  proposed  that  the  party  should 
officially  renounce  it.  In  support  of  this  proposal  they 
employed  the  arguments  which  are  always  employed 
by  the  Marxists  in  their  polemics  against  individual 
terrorism.  They  stated  that  terrorism  was  at  one  time 
plausible,  that  "  it  was  imagined  that  the  political  con- 
flict in  Russia  was  of  a  Titanic  character — that  is, 
that  it  partook  of  the  character  of  the  struggle  of 
a  group  of  individuals  against  another  group  of 
individuals  "  ;  but  actually  "  when  the  political  struggle 
has  become  a  class  conflict  "  one  cannot  allow  terrorism, 
because  an  act  of  individual  terrorism  cannot  change 
the  social  system.1 

However,  the  majority  of  the  party  leaders  would  not 
admit  this  argument,  and  decided  to  retain  terrorism, 
if  not  in  practice,  at  least  in  principle. 

It  must  be  mentioned  (as  I  have  already  said  in 
Modern  Russia)  that  the  "  principle  "  of  individual 
terrorism  agrees  with  the  mentality  of  an  intellectual, 
because  an  intellectual,  not  participating  directly  in 
the  material  mechanism  of  economic  life,  and  being 
"  independent  "  of  it,  is  very  slightly  sensible  of  the 
bond  between  him  and  the  social  mass,  is  inclined  to 
oppose  his  "  personality  "  to  society,  and  considers  the 
phenomena  of  social  life  as  the  manifestations  of  indi- 
vidual wills.  Seeing  in  the  social  organization  a  com- 
bination of  individuals,  an  intellectual  easily  comes  to 
believe  that  one  may  alter  this  organization  by 
suppressing  such  or  such  a  person. 

1  See  the  report  of  the  Debates  upon  Terrorism  in  the  Council  of  the 
Russian  Revolutionary  Socialist  Party,  May  1909  (LeSocialiste  Revolution- 
naire,  No.  2,  Paris,  1910). 


346  RUSSIA   AND   EUROPE 

VI 

To  understand  the  political  mentality  of  a  Russian 
intellectual,  we  must  have  recourse  to  the  works  of 
those  writers  who  have  formulated  the  social  and  moral 
philosophy  of  Populism,  above  all  the  works  of  Peter 
Lavrov  and   Nicholas   Mikhailovsky. 

"  How  has  history  progressed?  "  asks  Lavrov  in 
his  celebrated  Historic  Letters.  "  What  has  pushed 
it  onward?  Isolated  personalities.  .  .  .  Energetic, 
fanatical  men,  risking  everything  and  ready  to  sacrifice 
everything,  are  necessary.  Martyrs  are  necessary,  whose 
real  qualities  and  effective  merits  are  often  far  sur- 
passed by  their  legend.  They  will  be  endowed  with 
energy  which  they  did  not  possess.  The  noblest 
thoughts,  the  finest  sentiments  elaborated  by  their 
disciples,  will  be  put  into  their  mouths.  To  the  crowd 
they  will  become  an  inaccessible  ideal,  impossible  of 
realization.  But  their  story  will  inspire  thousands  of 
men  with  the  energy  which  is  necessary  for  the  con- 
flict. .  .  .  The  number  of  those  who  perish  does  not 
matter.  Legend  will  multiply  it  to  an  extreme  limit 
.  .  .  the  whole  of  social  progress  depends  on  the 
activity   of   isolated   personalities."  l 

The  same  idea  is  expressed  by  another  eminent 
narodnik,  N.  Mikhailovsky,  in  his  work  on  The  Heroes 
of  the  Craned.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  theory 
of  "  personalities  which  create  history,"  which,  in  its 
day,  was  popular  in  the  West,  receives  a  sort  of  local 
colour  in  Russia.  In  particular,  our  narodniki  assert 
that  in  Russia  the  role  of  a  "  conscious  personality  ' 
may  be  much  more  important  than  in  Europe.  Why? 
Because  the  social  environment  of  Russia  is  more 
uniform,  less  varied.  Therefore  an  idea  or  an  example 
may  have  a  great  power  of  contagion  in  such  an 
environment.  As  we  see,  a  defect  is  once  again  trans- 
formed into   a   virtue  ;    the   uniformity  and   the  unim- 

1  P.  Mirtov  (pseudonym  of  Lavrov),  Historical  Letters  (Petersburg, 
1870),  pp.  108,  109,  121. 


IDEALS  347 

portant  variation  which  are  the  proofs  of  a  backward 
condition   become,   for  our   narodniki,   an   advantage. 

The  problem  of  the  role  of  personality  in  history  is 
narrowly  connected  with  the  philosophy  of  history  in 
general.  It  was  especially  upon  this  point  that  the 
discussion  between  the  narodniki  and  the  Marxists  was 
centred.  The  narodniki  declared  that  the  objective, 
determinist  method  offered  by  Marxism  for  the  ex- 
planation and  appreciation  of  historical  phenomena  is 
not  sufficient,  that  it  must  be  replaced  by  the  sub- 
jective or  ethical  method.  A  historian  must  be  at 
the  same  time  a  moralist,  said  Mikhailovsky.  He  must 
not  only  establish  the  causes  and  consequences  of  events, 
but  must  judge  them  according  to  its  ethical  and  social 
ideal. 

This  historical  and  moralizing  "  subjectivism  "  is  in 
reality  merely  a  form  of  dualism  in  historical  and  social 
science.  We  shall  find  this  dualism  again  in  the 
Nihilists.  Materialistic  monists  in  the  natural  sciences, 
they  were  spiritualists  and  dualists  in  the  domain  of 
history  and  sociology,  and  in  Pisarev  we  find  almost 
the  same  subjectivist  conception  of  philosophy  as  in 
Mikhailovsky.  But  Pisarev  felt  that  the  subjective 
method  as  applied  to  the  social  science  was  in  contra- 
diction to  the  materialistic  monism  of  the  naturalistic 
philosophy.  Not  knowing  how  to  resolve  this  contra- 
diction, Pisarev  simply  excluded  the  social  sciences 
(geography,  anthropology,  and  statistics  excepted)  from 
the  domain  of  "  exact  "  and  positive  sciences.  Mikhail- 
ovsky did  worse — he  sought  to  legitimize  the  subjective 
and  anti-scientific  method  in  the  social  sciences. 

The  Russian  Marxists  believed,  on  the  contrary,  that 
they  ought  to  continue  the  materialistic  tradition,  and 
apply  it  to  the  social  sciences  and  to  the  philosophy  of 
history.  fThey  declared  that  ideals  are  only  a  forecast 
of  historical  necessity,  and  that  any  attempt  to  construct 
a  social  ideal  outside  this  forecast  is  futile.  Human 
ideals  are  determined  by  social  conditions,  not  by  class 
interests.      Those  ideals  are  justifiable  and  progressive* 


348  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

which  belong  to  the  progressive  classes.  As  the  indus- 
trial proletariat  is  a  class  of  the  future,  and  one  of  the 
most  progressive  forces,  it  is  the  ideal  of  this  class 
which  must  be  accepted  and  defended  by  all  those  who 
wish  to  contribute  to  the  progress  of  humanity.  But 
as  the  industrial  proletariat  develops  and  becomes  more 
and  more  numerous,  powerful,  and  conscious  as  capital- 
ism develops,  a  true  partisan  of  progress  and  the  revo- 
lution cannot  uphold  in  any  measure  an  institution 
which  places  obstacles  in  the  way  of  this  development. 

From  this  point  of  view  the  Marxists  pronounced 
against  all  attempts  to  artificially  maintain  the  mir, 
while  the  narodniki  even  demanded  a  special  legis- 
lation to  maintain  it.  The  Marxists  declared  vain  all 
the  socialistic  hopes  which  the  narodniki  based  on  the 
peasants,  and  easily  demonstrated  that  the  peasants 
did  not  represent  a  single  social  class  ;  that  in  the 
interior  of  the  rural  commune  an  economic  differentia- 
tion has  come  about,  and  a  social  conflict  has  developed. 
They  also  oppose  the  idea  that  the  "  intellectuals  " 
constitute  a  separate  social  group,  and  assert  that  class 
conflicts  and  class  mentality  are  reflected  in  the  ideology 
of  the  various  groups  of  intellectuals. 

The  conflict  between  the  narodniki  and  the  Marxists 
was  extremely  violent.  The  narodniki  interpreted  the 
economic  determinism  of  the  Marxists  as  a  form  of 
admiration  of  capitalism,  and  accused  them  of  being 
friends    of  the   exploiting  classes. 

The  insurrection  of  1905  put  these  two  doctrines  to 
the  test.  The  narodnitshestvo  was  divided,  during  and 
after  the  revolution  of  1905,  into  three  different  cur- 
rents ;  and  this  division  very  plainly  revealed  the  weak 
points  of  the  movement.  Its  left  wing,  inspired  by  the 
idea  that  personality  "  creates  "  history,  and  that  the 
laws  of  capitalistic  evolution  are  not  applicable  to 
Russia,  adopted  a  sort  of  anarchism,  proclaiming  the 
'  maximalist  "  theory,  according  to  which  Russia  might 
immediately,  without  any  delay,  realize  the  maximum 
programme  of  the  Socialist  party  ;   that  is  to  say,  might 


IDEALS  349 

bring  about  a  social  revolution  and  leap  directly  from 
the  semi-feudal  autocratic  regime  into  the  Socialist 
Paradise.  The  "maximalists"  began  to  effect  the 
"  social  revolution  "  by  inviting  the  workers  to  possess 
themselves  of  the  factories  and  workshops,  and  by 
forming  "  groups  "  which  committed  acts  of  terrorism 
and  expropriation.  This  movement  very  soon  degene- 
rated into  simple  brigandage. 

The  right  wing  of  the  narodnitshestvo,  on  the  other 
hand,  assumed  the  character  of  a  peasants'  party,  not 
particularly  socialistic,  but  extremely  democratic  as  far 
as  its  political  programme  was  concerned.  The  Labour 
group  in  the  Duma  and  the  "  Popular  Socialist  "  group 
represent  this  tendency.  The  "  Centre  "  of  the  narod- 
nitshestvo, represented  by  the  official  organizations  of 
the  Revolutionary  Socialist  party,  remains  the  guardian 
of  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  movement.  Its  pro- 
gramme is  an  eclectic  mixture  of  communal  federalism 
of  a  semi-Bakunist  type  and  State  Centralism,  and 
the  naive  belief  in  the  "  communist  "  sentiments  of  the 
members  of  the  rural  mir  and  the  desires  of  the  indus- 
trial proletariat.  The  disintegration  of  the  party  con- 
tinues ;  certain  of  its  elements  are  inclining  toward  the 
"  Labourites,"  others  toward  the  Anarchists,  and  others 
toward  Social  Democracy. 

As  for  Social  Democracy,  it  remains  far  more  united, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  theory,  than  the  narodnit- 
shestvo. But  in  Russian  Social  Democracy  there  are 
also  internal  movements.  Even  before  the  Revolution 
of  1905  there  were  lively  disputes  among  the  Russian 
Marxists.  Some  of  those  who  had  accepted  the  Marxist 
doctrine  afterwards  found  it  necessary  to  "  revise  '  it. 
They  renounced  historical  materialism,  returning  to  the 
metaphysical  conceptions  of  Kant  or  of  Nietzsche. 
Many  of  the  leaders  of  the  Liberal  movement  in  Russia 
(such  as  Peter  Struve,  founder  of  the  "  Cadet  "  party) 
formed  their  present  ideology  by  means  of  revising 
Marxism . 

After  the    Revolution    of     1905    we    witness    a   new 


350  RUSSIA  AND  EUROPE 

"  revision  "  of  the  Marxist  doctrine.  But  this  time 
it  is  not  based  upon  the  philosophy  of  Kant  or  of 
Nietzsche,  but  on  "  Machism,"  that  is,  on  the  ideas  of 
Ernst  Mach,  a  well-known  Viennese  physician.  This 
attempt  did  not  meet  with  much  success.  The 
"  Machists  "  were  received  by  the  violent  criticism 
of  the  orthodox  Marxists,  and  Plekhanov  in  particular. 
Thirty  years  earlier  the  chief  duty  of  upholding  Marxist 
ideas  in  Russia  had  fallen  upon  him,  and  he  had 
acquitted  himself  with  the  greatest  brilliancy. 
"  Machism  "  recruited  a  few  disciples  among  the 
intellectuals,  but  the  Social-Democratic  workers 
remained    indifferent  to    it. 

As  to  their  theoretical  opinions  the  Socialist  workers 
in  general  are  far  more  stable  and  conservative  in 
Russia  than  the  "  intellectuals."  From  the  moment 
when  Social-Democratic  Marxism1  had  penetrated  the 
labour  world,  it  acquired  a  very  strong  position.  Russia, 
who  gave  to  the  world  Marx's  most  powerful  enemy, 
Bakunin,  has  become,  by  the  irony  of  history,  in  respect 
of  its  Socialist  proletariat,  one  of  the  chief  fortresses  of 
Marxism.  But,  as  I  have  elsewhere  remarked,  Marxism 
and  Russian  Social  Democracy  are  not  identical  in 
German  eyes. 

The  Russian  Marxists  are  fond  of  saying  that  the 
true  revolutionary  Marxism  is  a  synthesis  of  three 
elements :  the  dialectic  philosophy  of  Germany,  the 
revolutionary  practice  of  France,  and  the  history  of 
economic  evolution  in  England.  Generally  speaking, 
the  Russian  Socialists  and  Revolutionists  are  to-day 
divided,  in  the  matter  of  tactics,  into  two  schools:) 
those  who  want  to  "  speak  German,"  that  is,  they 
recommend  a  gradual  organization  and  a  reforming 
opportunism,  and  those  who  wish  to  "  speak  French," 
that  is,  those  who  prefer  that  the  revolutionary  impulses 
of  the  popular  masses  should  work  out  their  own 
destinies.  The  adherents  of  the  "  French  method  "  are 
in  the  majority  among  the  more  thoughtful  elements 
of  the  party. 


CONCLUSION 

We  have  followed  the  development  of  the  relations 
between  Russia  and  Europe,  and  the  diffusion  of  Euro- 
pean influences  in  the  various  domains  of  the  material, 
social,  political,  and  intellectual  life  of  the  Russian 
people.  We  have  seen  that  the  influence  of  European 
elements  in  Russia  is  already  several  centuries  old,  and 
is  very  extensive— more  so,  perhaps,  than  Europeans 
themselves  believe. 

The  facts  expounded  in  the  present  work  show  that 
the  destinies  of  Russia  are  closely  bound  up  with  the 
future  of  Europe.  Not  only  in  the  sense  that  Europe  has 
struck  indestructible  roots  in  the  economic  domain  and 
the  political  life  of  Russia,  but  also  because  for  Russia 
the  general  type  of  life  and  historic  evolution  is  the  same 
as  for  the  West. 

Of  course,  we  cannot  say  that  the  Europeanization  of 
Russia  is  already  accomplished.  Economically  speak- 
ing, that  is,  as  regards  the  forms  of  labour  and  ex- 
change, it  is  already  complete  in  Russian  industry,  and 
more  or  less  complete  in  Russian  commerce.  In  rural 
exploitation  it  is  still  very  incomplete. 

But  it  is  especially  the  political  system  of  Russia 
which  is  out  of  date  and  too  Oriental,  and  which  con- 
sequently offers  a  striking  contrast  with  that  of  the 
European  States.  At  the  present  moment,  then,  it  is 
to  the  political  system  that  the  process  of  Europeaniza- 
tion must  be  extended,  in  order  to  adapt  it  to  the 
economic  environment,  and  to  subject  it  to  the  con- 
science and  aspirations  of  society.  This  conscience  is 
well   expressed    by   these   words  of   Dostoievsky's  :— 

351 


352  CONCLUSION 

".We  Russians  have  two  countries:  our  Russia,  and 
Europe." 

What  do  we  need?  That  our  country  shall  cease  tq 
be  a  European  Russia  and  shall  become  a  Russian 
Europe.  This  formula  synthetizes  what  is  good  in 
Russia  and  in  Europe.  Its  realization  will  allow  Russia 
to  work  in  common  with  other  European  countries  for 
the  future   of  the  human  species. 


/> 


Printed  in  Great  Britain  by 

UNWIN  BROTHERS,  LIMITED,  THE  GRESHAM  PRESS,  WOKING  AND  LONDON 


o    THE  UNIVERSITY    O 


t 


m 


m 


8 


o   THE  U8RARV  OF  o 


y 


*  &  NTA  BARBARA  -» 


°fr*- 

& 

f) 

\ 


•    *(N80ilW3  JO   » 


< 

5 

2 

s 

5 

Ml 

0 

AUSU3AINr» 

THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


I00M  11/86  Series  9482 


/ 


o  swasvg  wmvs  o 


\  / 

a   THE  U8RART  Of   o 
I 


.      -jj,™.. 


± 


I 


IARBARA 


ivfRsrry 


lARBAtl 


ft 


s 


no  a^H 


I 

NO  3HI  •- 


2.    /    *S 


a    THE  UNtVtjij^J 


•  Of  California  o 


A  A      000  206  373    3 


•     UIW 


0  *o  Awan  jn 


O    THf.  UNI"**"™ 

8 


\ 


3  1205  01041  6350 

•  vinrohto  <o  • 


o    Of  CAu- 


0    fO  A»V!)«n  3- 


&;S 


2 


3ft 


a    fMf.  UMMT  Of 


8 


viN»0«r5  fO    o  , 


o  MUMAIYM 


I 


°f[ 

Sf 

r*£ 

K 

°    VWSOJUVD  <0    «■ 


as 


3R 


VINVS  o 
I 

? 


O    1KSS3AINO  3M1    « , 


•  Of  CaUFORNU    • 


m 


c    *0    oviBii  3HJ    o 


•  n*  umaby  Of  o 


°fr1 

£ 

<¥ 

ft 

% 


•    VINVOJTIO  JO    •. 


a    THE  UNrvEtsmr 


«£ 


SB 


«  SANTA  BARBARA   O 


o  of  caut 


m 


tO   •  8*3*11   JMl    • 


■4 


O    Of  CAUfORNIA    e 

T !« 


u 


fiD 


s& 


o    THE  UNIVERSITY    o 


yc 


ST5 


0    .0   AKViOli  3Hi    o 


•  S   NTA  BARBARA    '  , 


O    TH«  imtARV  Of   • 


'■>      VIlMJOiIKO    «Q     « 


o    Of  CAIIFORN1A    o 

el.   J^ls 


O  VgVOTY*  TINTS  o 

i\  n  \r  Is 


e    TM(  ttBRARV  Of    c 

si    J— la 


